Possible new 377 order

[tbtc]

I'm slightly bemused as to why Northern Spirit and Metro didn't order a nice round 20 333s, and use them to replace the three 321s on Doncaster to Leeds: Instead, Neville Hill looks after two diminutive EMU fleets

Its a shame and a wasted opportunity.

Now, if the Leeds - Harrogate line gets electrified (a fairly simple electrification, I'm sure there would be a good cost/benefit ratio for it, though Knaresborough - York may have to stay unwired in the short term) then that'd be a third EMU fleet at Neville Hill. Bonkers.

333s are decent units that seem suited to what they do. However they are going to be an "oddball" small class in a few years time if/when they are moved off the Shipley routes

 

[philjo]

Before Bournemouth-Weymouth was electrified, a diesel loco was coupled to the EMU at Bournemouth & operated the train push-pull to weymouth & back.
If a few diesel locos were fitted with automatic couplers, would this be feasible for modern EMUs to take them beyond the wires? obviously the power demands are higher these days (air con, power doors etc)

e.g. windermere branch - one loco could do Oxenholme-Windermere & back then uncouple & the emu go off to Preston & the loco couples to the next emu that arrives. & repeat this process all day & through services are retained.

 

[tbtc]

Before Bournemouth-Weymouth was electrified, a diesel loco was coupled to the EMU at Bournemouth & operated the train push-pull to weymouth & back.
If a few diesel locos were fitted with automatic couplers, would this be feasible for modern EMUs to take them beyond the wires? obviously the power demands are higher these days (air con, power doors etc)

e.g. windermere branch - one loco could do Oxenholme-Windermere & back then uncouple & the emu go off to Preston & the loco couples to the next emu that arrives. & repeat this process all day & through services are retained.

If push pull works that'd be an excellent way of ensuring "through" services on a number of lines. However, if it meant the loco having to "run round" the EMU then that would complicate things a bit. Am sure someone on here will know

 

[sprinterguy]

Before Bournemouth-Weymouth was electrified, a diesel loco was coupled to the EMU at Bournemouth & operated the train push-pull to weymouth & back.
If a few diesel locos were fitted with automatic couplers, would this be feasible for modern EMUs to take them beyond the wires? obviously the power demands are higher these days (air con, power doors etc)

e.g. windermere branch - one loco could do Oxenholme-Windermere & back then uncouple & the emu go off to Preston & the loco couples to the next emu that arrives. & repeat this process all day & through services are retained.

Yes, it would be possible to convert a loco to be able to haul modern EMUs. The big problem is the cost of converting and maintaining a small fleet of non-standard locos for EMU drags: Assuming that there would be only a few branches where diesel haulage of EMUs would be necessary; with one loco for the Windermere branch and perhaps two for Carnforth to Barrow. The problem with the Windermere branch is, as tbtc seems to have cottoned on to, that there are no run round facilities at Windermere to move the loco to the other end of the train, and I think setting up multiple working equipment to allow the loco to propel the EMU would be complex. You’ve also got to consider the time penalty of coupling and uncoupling the loco, which will increase station dwell times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its a shame and a wasted opportunity.

Now, if the Leeds - Harrogate line gets electrified (a fairly simple electrification, I'm sure there would be a good cost/benefit ratio for it, though Knaresborough - York may have to stay unwired in the short term) then that'd be a third EMU fleet at Neville Hill. Bonkers.

333s are decent units that seem suited to what they do. However they are going to be an "oddball" small class in a few years time if/when they are moved off the Shipley routes

If the Harrogate circle was electrified, you could move the 333s onto that as well as using three to replace the 321s on Leeds to Doncaster, as there aren't that many units needed for Harrogate line services.

You'd still end up with two EMU fleets at Neville Hill, as there would also be the 319s/323s/whatever that were being used on the West Yorkshire lines, but at least there wouldn't be three different types!

If the West Yorkshire electric network did end up with 323s, I have no idea what would happen to the 333s if the Harrogate circle wasn't electrified.

 

[Crossforth]

Yes, it would be possible to convert a loco to be able to haul modern EMUs. The big problem is the cost of converting and maintaining a small fleet of non-standard locos for EMU drags: Assuming that there would be only a few branches where diesel haulage of EMUs would be necessary; with one loco for the Windermere branch and perhaps two for Carnforth to Barrow. The problem with the Windermere branch is, as tbtc seems to have cottoned on to, that there are no run round facilities at Windermere to move the loco to the other end of the train, and I think setting up multiple working equipment to allow the loco to propel the EMU would be complex. You’ve also got to consider the time penalty of coupling and uncoupling the loco, which will increase station dwell times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If the Harrogate circle was electrified, you could move the 333s onto that as well as using three to replace the 321s on Leeds to Doncaster, as there aren't that many units needed for Harrogate line services.

You'd still end up with two EMU fleets at Neville Hill, as there would also be the 319s/323s/whatever that were being used on the West Yorkshire lines, but at least there wouldn't be three different types!

If the West Yorkshire electric network did end up with 323s, I have no idea what would happen to the 333s if the Harrogate circle wasn't electrified.

I think the 333s are afar superior to the 323s. As well, 333s can fit snug on some platforms on the triangle and even though 323s can, they can't double up so you would be left with one less carriage in the formations

 

[sprinterguy]

I think the 333s are afar superior to the 323s. As well, 333s can fit snug on some platforms on the triangle and even though 323s can, they can't double up so you would be left with one less carriage in the formations

I agree that the 333s are an excellent train, and that's from someone who rather likes 323s! The reason 323s have been suggested for the West Yorkshire electric lines is explicitly because they are intended to work in six carriage formations, so I'm not sure how it would work if that would be too long for some of the platforms on the triangle, which presumably can't be extended due to the layout of the station.

 

[philjo]

Originally posted by Sprinterguy
Yes, it would be possible to convert a loco to be able to haul modern EMUs. The big problem is the cost of converting and maintaining a small fleet of non-standard locos for EMU drags: Assuming that there would be only a few branches where diesel haulage of EMUs would be necessary; with one loco for the Windermere branch and perhaps two for Carnforth to Barrow. The problem with the Windermere branch is, as tbtc seems to have cottoned on to, that there are no run round facilities at Windermere to move the loco to the other end of the train, and I think setting up multiple working equipment to allow the loco to propel the EMU would be complex. You’ve also got to consider the time penalty of coupling and uncoupling the loco, which will increase station dwell times.

On the Bournemouth-Weymouth services the loco always stayed at the Weymouth end without running round. the Emu cab at the other end was used for driving the train back to Bournemouth.

At Bournemouth, the incoming service from weymouth would couple at the front to another emu already waiting in the platform & the diesel then detached from the other end & a double unit Emu then went forward to Waterloo - I don't think the train was in Bournemouth for more than about 5 minutes.

The station dwell time would not be any less inconvenient/slower than having to change trains if the through service was not running.

 

[sprinterguy]

On the Bournemouth-Weymouth services the loco always stayed at the Weymouth end without running round. the Emu cab at the other end was used for driving the train back to Bournemouth.

At Bournemouth, the incoming service from weymouth would couple at the front to another emu already waiting in the platform & the diesel then detached from the other end & a double unit Emu then went forward to Waterloo - I don't think the train was in Bournemouth for more than about 5 minutes.

The station dwell time would not be any less inconvenient/slower than having to change trains if the through service was not running.

The Weymouth slammers had the standard locomotive "blue star" multiple working system though, which made it very simple to operate the loco from the cab of the EMU in push-pull mode, whereas modern coupling systems need to pass a lot more information between them in order for the trains to "talk" to each other. If you could get a push-pull arangement to work so that the diesel loco didn't have to change ends then that'd be great and would mean that turn round times would be exactly the same as for the multiple unit on it's own.

And whilst maintaining the through service by adding a couple of extra minutes onto the schedule to allow a loco to couple up is vastly more convenient to the passenger than having to change trains, it's a question of whether there is enough time available between other services for the platform at Oxenholme to be occupied for longer whilst a loco is coupled or uncoupled.

 

[lm321412]

The station dwell time would not be any less inconvenient/slower than having to change trains if the through service was not running.

But by the time the locos and multiple units have been converted, it would be cheaper and more cost effective for the passenger to change trains!

Its all down to £

 

[Class377/5]

Do we really want to keep 377's on the Thameslink route, isn't the dwell time at Farringdon to switch power systems a real pain?

Er, no. Simply put the situation is now that the 377/5 fleet has beded in and now changing over power is done very quickly, like under 30 seconds (I think its like 15-20).

Despite the problems of the 377/5 introduction both FCC and Bombarbier have thrown rescources into the problem and the latest figures for them is up there with the best of the southern region EMU's. I can't wait to see how they do in january with the annual sats.

As for what stock is going where, we're all going to have to await the announcement as Thameslink, IEP and North West new EMU have all been tied together by the Government. The sooner we know the better.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I read that the 4th car in 333's is funded by SYTPE because WYTPE ran out of funding and the 4th car was to be withdrawn and 321's move away from doncaster and SYPTE didn't like that, is there any truth in it?

 

[thelem]

What ever stock is used it will need to have automatic train operation fitted to achieve the frequencies in the core.

Alternatively, they could keep the current service level but use 12 car trains, which would be quite a good compromise for saving money while not wasting what has already been spent (which I'd have thought is largely the cost of extending all those platforms). That would just need extra carriages to increase an 8-car to a 12-car.

Actually, I don't think 319s can run as a 12-car DOO (no cameras), so they might want to replace some 319s with 377s to increase the proportion of 12-car services that can be run.

 

[jon0844]

I would be quite happy with a new fleet of 377s (with 2+2 seating throughout and FCC colours*) for TL and GN.

Throw in some 378s for services to Moorgate (ideally becoming part of London Overground), and that's a new fleet of trains done very quickly and easily.. and, the added bonus is that we now have a very large fleet of these trains for future cascading. And drivers only have to be trained on one, possibly two, trains. Does that sound sensible? You now have 317s, 321s and 365s to cascade.. the 313s probably bowing out gracefully.

Given the fact that the new timetables will allow trains to run more often, and in longer formations, some of the requirements of the new fleet are less important. People will be more likely to get a seat, and certainly get on a train, almost all the time.

All that is needed is the nod, and I'm sure the order could be made in a matter of months.

* Of course, that would require First retaining the franchise!

 

[northwichcat]

I read that the 4th car in 333's is funded by SYTPE because WYTPE ran out of funding and the 4th car was to be withdrawn and 321's move away from doncaster and SYPTE didn't like that, is there any truth in it?

WYPTE's funding indeed expired on the 333s 4th cars and it was proposed that they would be removed as funding was not available to continue to pay for them. That information is in a WYPTE report online, I don't have the link available but you may be able to find it via Google.

It has been mentioned numerous times that the 4th cars are now sponsored by SYPTE to allow 4 cars to continue on Doncaster runs and that a number of the 158s used in West Yorkshire are sponsored by Merseytravel to allow 156s to be used on Liverpool to Wigan/Man Airport's but that isn't the kind of information PTEs would publicise too much if it is true.

 

[tbtc]

WYPTE's funding indeed expired on the 333s 4th cars and it was proposed that they would be removed as funding was not available to continue to pay for them. That information is in a WYPTE report online, I don't have the link available but you may be able to find it via Google.

It has been mentioned numerous times that the 4th cars are now sponsored by SYPTE to allow 4 cars to continue on Doncaster runs and that a number of the 158s used in West Yorkshire are sponsored by Merseytravel to allow 156s to be used on Liverpool to Wigan/Man Airport's but that isn't the kind of information PTEs would publicise too much if it is true.

According to Wikepedia SYPTE pay for them, but I took that with a pinch of salt...

I'd be bemused if SYPTE are paying for sixteen coaches that spend 99.9% of their time in West Yorkshire.

The Leeds - Doncaster 321s are only serving Adwick, Bentley and Doncaster hourly, so it's not like they are providing a *massive* part of South Yorkshire's rail capacity - if SYPTE want to pay for four car trains then they ought to be paying for four car trains on Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield, or Doncaster - Rotherham - Sheffield.

 

[northwichcat]

if SYPTE want to pay for four car trains then they ought to be paying for four car trains on Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield, or Doncaster - Rotherham - Sheffield.

The difference there is where are the extra diesel vehicles going to come from? The 333 4th cars were already there and funding would have been required to keep them there rather than acquire them in the first place.

I agree with you that Adwick and Bentley wouldn't be SYPTE's top priority but I think they have to give consideration to how many people are on the train when it arrives and leaves Doncaster, not just to how many people travel between Doncaster and Adwick and Bentley.

If WYPTE aren't providing the funding which seems to be the case it'd be interesting to see an official document saying who is funding them.

 

[Aictos]

What ever stock is used it will need to have automatic train operation fitted to achieve the frequencies in the core.

Alternatively, they could keep the current service level but use 12 car trains, which would be quite a good compromise for saving money while not wasting what has already been spent (which I'd have thought is largely the cost of extending all those platforms). That would just need extra carriages to increase an 8-car to a 12-car.

Actually, I don't think 319s can run as a 12-car DOO (no cameras), so they might want to replace some 319s with 377s to increase the proportion of 12-car services that can be run.

Actually there is no reason why the 319s can't run in passenger service as a 12 car despite no cameras like the 377s have as the 365s don't have cameras and they most certainly run in 12 car formations on the GN.

FCC has them call at stations which can take 12 cars but also rather then have one person dispatch them, the majority of these stations have a two man team to safely dispatch the 12 car.

Now I know the 377/5s are Southern's and FCC are only borrowing them but ideally I would like nothing better then to for the DfT to authorise FCC to get their own batch of about 100+ 377s

Thus freeing up the 319s to go elsewhere!

I would be quite happy with a new fleet of 377s (with 2+2 seating throughout and FCC colours*) for TL and GN.

Throw in some 378s for services to Moorgate (ideally becoming part of London Overground), and that's a new fleet of trains done very quickly and easily.. and, the added bonus is that we now have a very large fleet of these trains for future cascading. And drivers only have to be trained on one, possibly two, trains. Does that sound sensible? You now have 317s, 321s and 365s to cascade.. the 313s probably bowing out gracefully.

Given the fact that the new timetables will allow trains to run more often, and in longer formations, some of the requirements of the new fleet are less important. People will be more likely to get a seat, and certainly get on a train, almost all the time.

All that is needed is the nod, and I'm sure the order could be made in a matter of months.

* Of course, that would require First retaining the franchise!

I totally agree with you there, the 317s, 319s and 321s could go to NXEA or to Northern and the 365s could go to Great Western as they are built to the loading gauge leaving FCC if First retain to place a order for 50 Class 378 types but with 2+2 low back seating and 191 Class 377/5s with 2+2 seating to cascade all 317s, 319s, 321s and 365s plus order enough extra units to cascade the loaned 377s back to Southern and run the majority of peak services as 12 cars.

 

[jopsuk]

As I understand it, the only Networkers with severe loading gauge issues are the Turbos- most 23m long stock is 2.7m wide, whilst 20m stock is mainly 2.8m wide. Turbos are 23m long and 2.8m wide. The electric Networkers are 20m long

 

[jon0844]

As I have no complaints about the 317s and 321s on FCC (and the refreshed 319s seem fine on the TL route), give them all a decent refresh and I am sure that anyone who gets them would be more than happy. If air conditioning was also added, they could be made to look like new (take what Southern has done to the 313s!).

The refreshed trains would have a life of another 10-15 years at least, so it would be at least another two parliaments before another order would need to be made to replace them all in one go. Imagine if they opted for a train similar to the 377s then - that would gradually mean a move towards a standardised fleet!

Of course that won't happen, will it?

 

[tbtc]

The difference there is where are the extra diesel vehicles going to come from? The 333 4th cars were already there and funding would have been required to keep them there rather than acquire them in the first place

You're right about the lack of "spare" Diesel stock, but I'm wondering what would have happened if (assuming this story is correct) SYPTE hasn't agreed to fund these sixteen coaches?

Would Northern have moved the three 321s to the Shipley line and run the remainder of the Shipley lines with three car 333s?

Would a three coach 333 have ended up on the Doncaster duties? Or would Pacers have been found?

What would have happened to the redundant coaches?

The whole thing baffles me

 

[paul1609]

I've seen a rumour saying that 3 car 377s could be heading to the North West after electrification to be used on Blackpool and Scotland services. There would then be an order of new 4 car 377s which would both compliment the 3 car 377s used on Blackpool/Scotland services and also replace the cascaded 3 car 377s.

Although this is a rumour there does seem a lot of sense to it. Most North West platforms can't take 8 cars but the bigger stations can mainly take 6. It would allow extra carriages on Thameslink but not to the same extent as was proposed with the 319 cascade and likewise gives more carriages to the North but not as many as if the 319s came up here.

All the 3 car 377 are dc only. in theory they are convertible for ac operation but they lack the necessary transformers, cabling and pantographs. In order to provide more rolling stock for Thameslink an engineering assesment was done to convert some of Southeasterns dc only units to dual voltage. Unfortunately many of the electrical components they need to be fitted with are no longer in production. The report concluded that it would be cheaper to provide replacement stock than convert the existing dc only 377s.

 

[MCR247]

Surely it would have been possible to use the 30 /6s which are DV and the 15 377/2s if they needed to?

 

[Aictos]

Surely it would have been possible to use the 30 /6s which are DV and the 15 377/2s if they needed to?

What routes do South Eastern actually use the 375/6s on seeing as they're dual voltage?

 

[MCR247]

Lets put it this way the pantos are probably inhabited by spiders and covered in cobwebs...

Although saying that, SE may have removed them at some point, but I have no idea

 

[Class377/5]

What routes do South Eastern actually use the 375/6s on seeing as they're dual voltage?

From standing around in London Bridge looking out for the 6's they seem to be doing alot of Hastings via Tunbridge Wells services.

I don't believe they've ever been used on AC since they came. Likely know they would need some major work to get the pans fully working.

Waste of rescources tho.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 375/6s also turn up a lot on the Victoria - Kent Coast workings.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You're right about the lack of "spare" Diesel stock, but I'm wondering what would have happened if (assuming this story is correct) SYPTE hasn't agreed to fund these sixteen coaches?

Would Northern have moved the three 321s to the Shipley line and run the remainder of the Shipley lines with three car 333s?

Would a three coach 333 have ended up on the Doncaster duties? Or would Pacers have been found?

What would have happened to the redundant coaches?

The whole thing baffles me

yeah would they just be left rot in neville hill?


why is continuous funding needed for an extra coach?

 

[tbtc]

yeah would they just be left rot in neville hill?

why is continuous funding needed for an extra coach?

I just can't understand!

No wonder Northern are making a "profit" if they are screwing over the PTEs to make them pay for things like this!

If SYPTE are paying South Yorkshire taxpayers' money on these coaches then can we not insist that the good modern 333s are used on the Doncaster service and the older 321s stick on Shipley runs? Why are we paying for coaches that we aren't using?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I just can't understand!

No wonder Northern are making a "profit" if they are screwing over the PTEs to make them pay for things like this!

If SYPTE are paying South Yorkshire taxpayers' money on these coaches then can we not insist that the good modern 333s are used on the Doncaster service and the older 321s stick on Shipley runs? Why are we paying for coaches that we aren't using?

agree completely, dont pay taxes yet so wont get too angry.

I don't see how this works, why has WYPTE funding run out? and yeah why should there operating costs come from PTE not northern when northern are making all money off them. questions questions, should hopefully change with a change in Northern EMU's after electrification

 

[WatcherZero]

The government sets out the service specification in the franchise agreement, e.g. this route has to be minimum 3 car, the government also pays for that specification to be operated in service (why it has so much control over rolling stock, it can refuse to pay for the operation of stock it doesnt like). The PTE's are then able to subsidise extra coachs from their rail grant. On cap and collar franchises like Northern any extra bums on seats because of the extra coachs goes straight back to the government in franchise payments/reduced subsidy so often theirs an economic disadvantage in providing the extra service unless the PTE foots the bill. The national government meanwhile is making a profit recouping some or all of the rail grant being spent by the PTE, the PTE doesnt see a penny of the extra government revenue.

Just one of the flaws in the current franchise organisation.