What stock "should" operate Liverpool-Norwich services?

[D365]

Once again, there's nothing stopping a modern equivalent to the 444 from being built, if Siemens or Bombardier is asked... Also, when WestCountry was talking about Felixstowe-Nuneaton electrification, it wouldn't be much use without going all the way into Birmingham as only then could the XC Stansted-Birmingham service be converted to 379s; though with trolley provision and firmer buttons!

Where you have planned a splitting service, it can't be guaranteed that the formation will be in the right order. it may be difficult to swap units, especially during times of disruption, and could end up with the shorter unit on the busier service and the longer on the quieter, against what is planned. Does this happen regularly in Britain at present; trains splitting into differently-formed units.

 

[WestCountry]

Where you have planned a splitting service, it can't be guaranteed that the formation will be in the right order. it may be difficult to swap units, especially during times of disruption, and could end up with the shorter unit on the busier service and the longer on the quieter, against what is planned. Does this happen regularly in Britain at present; trains splitting into differently-formed units.

SWT manage it daily on their Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter line, with everything from 2-car to >9-car formations of 158s and 159s splitting and forming.

I still think 4/6-car formations made up of 2-car 158s would be a better solution for diesel-only operation, as you get more capacity and all the units can be identical. Operationally that would be the same as now, except with one extra unit tacked onto every service.

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed a 12 car train splitting down to an 8 or 4 car train 'en route' is really no different. It still cannot be planned at random just because all the portions are the same length; there'll be an overall plan to make sure the 3 units forming the train come off the depot in the right order, or if they are forming up during the day (perhaps for the evening peak) they'll have a booked order to join in, all this is done to meet the requirements to balance mileage and present units for maintenance at the correct times.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I still think 4/6-car formations made up of 2-car 158s would be a better solution for diesel-only operation, as you get more capacity and all the units can be identical. Operationally that would be the same as now, except with one extra unit tacked onto every service.

I agree, 158s are the right stock assuming it remains a diesel-only operation, although lots of other routes need more 158s (Cardiff - Portsmouth for one, to lengthen the service to 4-car) if they also remain diesel operated.

Where you have planned a splitting service, it can't be guaranteed that the formation will be in the right order. it may be difficult to swap units, especially during times of disruption, and could end up with the shorter unit on the busier service and the longer on the quieter, against what is planned. Does this happen regularly in Britain at present; trains splitting into differently-formed units.

Ok, that's a good point. Maybe it would be better to either have a 5or6-car 444-alike bi-mode thoughout or have 3-car 444-alike bi-modes with 2x 3-car on the busier section. That means it doesn't matter which way round the two portions are and it increases the busy section by two carriages (4-car to 6-car) and the quieter section by one (2-car to 3-car).

 

[CockneySparrow]

Won't there be some 158s available once the Blackpool electrification is complete

 

[northwichcat]

Won't there be some 158s available once the Blackpool electrification is complete

No. A mixture of 142s, 150s, 156s and 185s will be released by the North West electrification.

There is a late night Blackpool-Manchester service booked to be a class 158 but that's a unit that's been running York-Blackpool services for most of the day, put on a Manchester service for stock movement purposes.

I don't think any 158s will be released anywhere as the result of upcoming electrification work.

 

[David Goddard]

how much longer would the Cambridge-Norwich service take if it stopped at (most) stations on every service?

Alternatively, what about a serious recast, so that there was an hourly Liverpool - Norwich stopping only at Thetford, the current Cambridge-Norwich stopping at a couple more stations, and a third service, Cambridge-Norwich stopping at every station?

This would mirror the Peterborough-Ely section somewhat, which I'd alter to having the Birmingham-Stansted and Liverpool-Norwich services both stopping March only, with the Peterborough-Ipswich being all-stations (as it is Ely-Ipswich).

This would mean that at least east of Peterborough, where there are other services, there would be less barriers to using "intercity" stock (Stansted would remain an issue for the XC service).

Thetford only is presently 50 minutes to Ely, a principal caller (typical Cambridge service calling Wymondham, Attleborough, Thetford and Brandon) is 58 minutes while an all stations (not that there are any today) would take an hour and ten.

Again, this is virtually the status quo. EMT only serves Thetford except at the start and end of the day, with GA's Cambridge-Norwich service picking up the other towns (Brandon, Attleborough and Wymondham). The remaining five stations see low use and are served by additional calls in GA's trains as appropriate to demand. If a third Breckland line service (calling at principals)was brought in I would see mileage in a Norwich-Birmingham run, making the core section from Ely up to half hourly.

Peterborough-Ipswich does serve March and Whittlesea on all trips, and (based on another thread) will pick up the Manea stop from December so this is covered too.

 

[D365]

Indeed a 12 car train splitting down to an 8 or 4 car train 'en route' is really no different. It still cannot be planned at random just because all the portions are the same length; there'll be an overall plan to make sure the 3 units forming the train come off the depot in the right order, or if they are forming up during the day (perhaps for the evening peak) they'll have a booked order to join in, all this is done to meet the requirements to balance mileage and present units for maintenance at the correct times.

Good summation. The complex job of planning for mileage-based maintenance is the subject of this SWT training video, produced right about the time of privatisation.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Thetford only is presently 50 minutes to Ely, a principal caller (typical Cambridge service calling Wymondham, Attleborough, Thetford and Brandon) is 58 minutes while an all stations (not that there are any today) would take an hour and ten.

Again, this is virtually the status quo. EMT only serves Thetford except at the start and end of the day, with GA's Cambridge-Norwich service picking up the other towns (Brandon, Attleborough and Wymondham). The remaining five stations see low use and are served by additional calls in GA's trains as appropriate to demand. If a third Breckland line service (calling at principals)was brought in I would see mileage in a Norwich-Birmingham run, making the core section from Ely up to half hourly.

Peterborough-Ipswich does serve March and Whittlesea on all trips, and (based on another thread) will pick up the Manea stop from December so this is covered too.

EMT will pick up all stations (except partially closed ones) to/from Norwich if the GA service is cancelled

GA service to/from Norwich has been known to stop at Waterbeach if there is no FCC service

 

[swt_passenger]

Ok, that's a good point. Maybe it would be better to either have a 5or6-car 444-alike bi-mode thoughout or have 3-car 444-alike bi-modes with 2x 3-car on the busier section. That means it doesn't matter which way round the two portions are and it increases the busy section by two carriages (4-car to 6-car) and the quieter section by one (2-car to 3-car).

You were probably writing this when I posted immediately above you, but even if portion worked trains use the same size units, the overall mileage based diagramming for the fleet will make it essential that the portions are presented in the right order.

 

[jopsuk]

I've seen mention of Japanese services using (say) units that split 7/4, with the 7 section terminating and the 4 continuing (demand much less beyond split location). They even set them up so that the "inner" cabs are gangwayed whilst the outer ones aren't, and can run just the 7 or just the 4 on the whole route when demand is lower.

 

[jamesontheroad]

I don't think any 158s will be released anywhere as the result of upcoming electrification work.

Will the EGIP electrification allow for any 158s to be released from Scotrail? A healthy batch of Turbostars would be released from the shuttles, in turn perhaps allowing some 158s to head south?

Assuming of course, that Scotland is in the same country by the time EGIP is completed

 

[northwichcat]

Will the EGIP electrification allow for any 158s to be released from Scotrail? A healthy batch of Turbostars would be released from the shuttles, in turn perhaps allowing some 158s to head south?

Last time I suggested 158s and 170s from Scotrail going to England a Scottish forum user suggested Scotrail would never give those up as long as they have 156s in their fleet.

Assuming of course, that Scotland is in the same country by the time EGIP is completed

Of course, given the three leasing companies are registered in 'England & Wales' not Scotland I think if Scotland became independent the only way Scotrail could keep all their stock once the leases expire is to pay a premium to the leasing companies.

 

[anthony263]

I wouldnt be surprised if Scotrail choose to give up their class 156's before the class 158's. There is a suggestion that Chiltern could get some class 170's from Scotrail to allow their class 172's to provide extra capacity on the London Overground Gospel Oak - Barking line

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wouldnt be surprised if Scotrail choose to give up their class 156's before the class 158's. There is a suggestion that Chiltern could get some class 170's from Scotrail to allow their class 172's to provide extra capacity on the London Overground Gospel Oak - Barking line

Though the 156s are currently the only DMUs passed on the WHL (and possibly some sections of the G&SW too?) so unless 158s can be passed on those routes, a fair few 156s will be retained. On that basis the 158s are more likely to be given up (though Transport Scotland will probably try to hang on to any displaced units to boost capacity).

 

[CockneySparrow]

Will the EGIP electrification allow for any 158s to be released from Scotrail? A healthy batch of Turbostars would be released from the shuttles, in turn perhaps allowing some 158s to head south?

Assuming of course, that Scotland is in the same country by the time EGIP is completed

One would assume that whilst they have 156s in their fleet they won't release any 158s however as each train is leased and lease fees might be more for a 158 than a 156 they might have no choice especially if they get newer EMUs which might have a higher lease fee than the current 158s

Depends how the books balance

 

[northwichcat]

I wouldnt be surprised if Scotrail choose to give up their class 156's before the class 158's. There is a suggestion that Chiltern could get some class 170's from Scotrail to allow their class 172's to provide extra capacity on the London Overground Gospel Oak - Barking line

If Scotrail are able to loan out a couple of 170s then why have TPE not looked at that option, especially considering First are involved in both franchises?

One would assume that whilst they have 156s in their fleet they won't release any 158s however as each train is leased and lease fees might be more for a 158 than a 156 they might have no choice especially if they get newer EMUs which might have a higher lease fee than the current 158s

Depends how the books balance

If we look at what happened with Central, they gave up their 156s and some 158s as they got 170s. However, they kept 150s and 153s. I would have thought the 150/1s would have been the best ones for them to off-load.

 

[edwin_m]

The article in Modern Railways a few months ago fingered a batch of eight Angel-owned 158s as the most likely to be given up by Scotrail, but even that wasn't certain.

Swapping diagrams isn't quite so much of a problem for electrics as there is generally less maintenance to do and of course no fuel to worry about.

 

[WestCountry]

If Scotrail are able to loan out a couple of 170s then why have TPE not looked at that option, especially considering First are involved in both franchises?

They won't be able to until EGIP electrification, or at least several of the smaller schemes, has been finished - by which time the North West electrification schemes (Manchester-Scotland, Windermere, Blackpool) will be done and so there'll be spare 185s anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

The article in Modern Railways a few months ago fingered a batch of eight Angel-owned 158s as the most likely to be given up by Scotrail, but even that wasn't certain.

Which I think are the ones Scotrail got from Northern, which led EMT giving some 153 and 158 carriages and leaving both Northern and EMT short.

They won't be able to until EGIP electrification, or at least several of the smaller schemes, has been finished - by which time the North West electrification schemes (Manchester-Scotland, Windermere, Blackpool) will be done and so there'll be spare 185s anyway.

So when will EGIP electrification happen compared to LO electrification?

 

[D365]

Goblin is 25kV AC by 2016. How soon could any 170s be converted as 168s, to replace the 4 172/1s on Chiltern to go to Goblin for 2 years, and then on to, say, Birmingham.

 

[northwichcat]

Goblin is 25kV AC by 2016. How soon could any 170s be converted as 168s, to replace the 4 172/1s on Chiltern to go to Goblin for 2 years, and then on to, say, Birmingham.

Given 170s are compatible with all the Sprinters and other diesel Turbostars (except the 171s) would they need converting?

 

[jopsuk]

As far as I understand, the coupling electircal connections are laid out differently- something to do with NSE not wanting the Networker Turbos to be comaptible with Sprinters. Thus the 168s are compatible with 165s (and presumably 166s as well), but nothing else.

 

[northwichcat]

Ah I've just found this from Porterbrook on the 170s:

A BSI coupler provides full multiple working with Classes 150, 153, 155, 156, 158 and with minor modification Class 159, 165, 166, 168, 142, 143, 144. The UK’s most versatile unit.

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/images/pic_library/pdf/Class 170-3.pdf

And on the 168s:

Class 168 is subdivided into /0 (the first batch), /1 (The Class 170 design) and /2 (fitted with a databus system). The /1 is classed as a 168 due to coupling compatibility, which matches the 16X series rather than 15X. This can easily be changed if required by a wiring modification; the mechanical coupling head being the same

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/images/pic_library/pdf/Class 168.pdf

 

[cslusarc]

Liverpool has 3tph to Crewe already; the purpose of the EMT service isn't to serve end to end passengers (although obviously there are a few passengers aboard for the long haul); it's an inter-urban semi-fast service for journeys like Manchester to Nottingham or Peterborough to Sheffield. Knocking out the Manchester and Sheffield route would be self-defeating.

What I would like to see is the existing LIV-NRW service split into several services. One service would give LIV a faster routing to NRW. Another service would link MAN and NOT (avoiding SHF) via the Hope Valley and a third service might link double the "South TransPennine" route to half-hourly between MAN and SHF and rerouting its western end to start at LIV and operate via WAC. I would also like to temporarily redirect those "South TransPennine" passengers travelling to/from MIA on a Rail Replacement Bus between SPT and MIA until there is an efficient rail (or Metrolink) service between SPT and MIA.

 

[NLC1072]

Keep the service as it is then introduce more cascaded 158's to run hourly between Nottingham and Liverpool to make a half hourly service between those points and keep east of Nottingham as hourly, paths permitting.

 

[43074]

Keep the service as it is then introduce more cascaded 158's to run hourly between Nottingham and Liverpool to make a half hourly service between those points and keep east of Nottingham as hourly, paths permitting.

Wouldn't be possible without significantly altering Leeds to Nottingham, Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport or Scarborough to Liverpool services, which appear to be timed to provide a half hourly express service between Nottingham and Sheffield, Sheffield and Manchester and Manchester and Liverpool via Warrington, as shown below:

Nottingham to Sheffield: EMT depart Nottingham @ xx:45 to Liverpool. Northern depart @ xx:15 to Leeds.

Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly: EMT depart Sheffield @ xx:40 to Liverpool. TPE depart @ xx:10 to Manchester Airport (from Cleethorpes).

Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool: EMT service depart Manchester @ xx:37. TPE depart @ xx:07 to Liverpool (from Scarborough).

and similar in the other direction.

 

[Aictos]

IMO it would be nice to have extra 158s on the Liverpool to Norwich route as you could have 4 cars the entire route which I think is ideal as there are a few services east of Nottingham which are quite busy, not sure how many more 158s would be needed but this would be better then introducing new stock or a new timetable.

Just cascade the 158s from First Scotrail if they have any freed up by electrification and send surplus 158s from SWT to make the maths work - as to 170s they should go to Cross Country and have the 3 car sets on the Birmingham to Stansted service with any 2 car sets being used elsewhere on the XC network.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think the best use may be to introduce a second Liverpool service to replace Liverpool Scarborough in 2016 upon completion of several electrification projects and TPE recast.

I would introduce a Nottingham, Beeston, Derby, Chesterfield, (Dronfield peaks), (Chinley peaks), Stockport, Piccadilly, Oxford Road, Birchwood, Warrington, South Parkway, Lime Street.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think the best use may be to introduce a second Liverpool service to replace Liverpool Scarborough in 2016 upon completion of several electrification projects and TPE recast.

I would introduce a Nottingham, Beeston, Derby, Chesterfield, (Dronfield peaks), (Chinley peaks), Stockport, Piccadilly, Oxford Road, Birchwood, Warrington, South Parkway, Lime Street.

The only issue with your plan is the lack of paths between Derby and Sheffield on what is a very busy stretch of railway. However if we can find some room how about having a couple of early morning stops at Belper!