Where should the 322s head?

[Anvil1984]

Isnt it more of a case of TPE wanted to order more but had there order cut back then had to use 158s/ 170s for services when they got added services which they werent indended to operate when the franchise was let,
321s have always been used at Leeds since built way before the 333s or before they even electrified the North West triangle however I bet Metro / Northern now wish they more 333s instead as they are a nightmare when they fail.

I am in the camp that think they should go to Northern in exchange for our 321s to go to NXEA but they wont

 

[87015]

Why would NXEA want more units? The diagrams for December already have plenty spare in them and thats with as good as every peak train a 12 car on GE, more than you'd ever need units on WA being available once the 379s come in and no extra peak paths available on both routes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Totally agree!

Same with TPE not ordering enough 185s and so using 158/170s (the 170s could be used at Scotrail/ LM/ NXEA).

Same with Northern Spirit/ ATN not ordering enough 333s and so using 321s from Leeds (as jopsuk says, the 321s could be used at FCC and NXEA).

In fact, the same could be argued of Midland Mainline not ordering enough 222s to replace all HSTs (since the HSTs could be used by XC/ FGW etc)

The hassle of maintaining small fleets means new orders for units should be sufficient to replace everything they need to - not to leave a handful of "other" units like the 321s at LM/ Northern (or the 170s at TPE)

i didnt realise they didnt order enough 170's i thought they just avoided hull line thats bad, :/

the 321's were built specifically for doncaster leeds is that why they have remained there?

disgraceful about 321's with LM, and same happens with 172's they arnt getting rid of all 150/3's there should of been enough to remove sprinters entirely from LM franchise not just 80%

 

[tbtc]

Isnt it more of a case of TPE wanted to order more but had there order cut back then had to use 158s/ 170s for services when they got added services which they werent indended to operate when the franchise was let,

Yeah, there are a few stories about why the 185 mess happened, partly to do with who thought of only three coaches with a chance to build a fourth one, what the truths are about not being able to build fourth coaches now (is it impossible, or could different coaches be built to be compatible?), whether the Scottish services should have been planned for at the time the 185s were ordered...

321s have always been used at Leeds since built way before the 333s or before they even electrified the North West triangle however I bet Metro / Northern now wish they more 333s instead as they are a nightmare when they fail.

I am in the camp that think they should go to Northern in exchange for our 321s to go to NXEA but they wont

Aye, the 321s have been around longer, but ATN should have ordered enough 333s to replace all 308s and 321s, not just to replace the 308s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

i didnt realise they didnt order enough 170's i thought they just avoided hull line thats bad, :/

the 321's were built specifically for doncaster leeds is that why they have remained there?

disgraceful about 321's with LM, and same happens with 172's they arnt getting rid of all 150/3's there should of been enough to remove sprinters entirely from LM franchise not just 80%

If the 170s were only required to keep lightweight trains on the Hull route then why are 170s so often on the Cleethorpes service (whilst presumably 185s run to Hull)? I've never understood that one...

Similarly, LM should have got enough 172s to replace all 150/153s meaning all their DMUs would be 170/172 (plus the Parry People Mover, but not a lot we can do about that!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would NXEA want more units? The diagrams for December already have plenty spare in them and thats with as good as every peak train a 12 car on GE, more than you'd ever need units on WA being available once the 379s come in and no extra peak paths available on both routes.

Don't they need more EMUs to replace the 170 duties south of Ipswich?

 

[YorkshireBear]

exactly so only 170/2 and 139 with LM thats more units for northern/fgw/atw/emt (indirectly for some TOC's) and it wouldnt of been that much more expensive because its just a few tagged on end of order same with 350's

is production line for 350's still on or shut down?

 

[tbtc]

exactly so only 170/2 and 139 with LM thats more units for northern/fgw/atw/emt (indirectly for some TOC's) and it wouldnt of been that much more expensive because its just a few tagged on end of order same with 350's

is production line for 350's still on or shut down?

It seems so hard/ expensive/ complicated to build additional units, so I think it'd make more sense to build plenty new units (when a production line is open) and cascade older units elsewhere

 

[YorkshireBear]

It seems so hard/ expensive/ complicated to build additional units, so I think it'd make more sense to build plenty new units (when a production line is open) and cascade older units elsewhere

maybe someone should suggest forward planning to them?

 

[ainsworth74]

It seems so hard/ expensive/ complicated to build additional units, so I think it'd make more sense to build plenty new units (when a production line is open) and cascade older units elsewhere

Indeed it does seem like it would be easier to get blood from a stone. But I've been wondering (prompted by watching another rammed 170 from Hull this afternoon) whether it would be possible to tack on an order for additional 172 centre cars and make them work with the 170s that TPE have (or for that matter any TOC with 2 car 170s). My reasoning being that this a design that is actually being built so surely actually getting the extra vehicles wouldn't be that hard?

 

[tbtc]

maybe someone should suggest forward planning to them?

You'd think the railway would be making long term plans better than this, wouldn't you?

Instead the "Logic" is "we need six new units to upgrade a service from X to Y..."

...Shall we buy more units so that we can benefit from lower costs and ship off some of our older units? NO

...Shall we order the same units as another TOC so we can benefit from lower costs? NO

...Do we have an organised body in charge of the railways who can ensure that we have common units capable of working in multiple? NO

I could understand BR building a handful of 82/83/84s so that they could learn some lessons for the 100 class 86s. However, with units it becomes more essential to avoid tiny classes...

 

[MCR247]

172 centre cars would be a lot different to the 170s. But it must be quite easy to build more 170s if more Turbostars and Electrostars are being built. But it might mean fitting the whole unit with new engines if the same engines are no longer in production

 

[tbtc]

Indeed it does seem like it would be easier to get blood from a stone. But I've been wondering (prompted by watching another rammed 170 from Hull this afternoon) whether it would be possible to tack on an order for additional 172 centre cars and make them work with the 170s that TPE have (or for that matter any TOC with 2 car 170s). My reasoning being that this a design that is actually being built so surely actually getting the extra vehicles wouldn't be that hard?

That'd be a really good idea, if 172-style coaches can be built that are compatible with 170s then we should order dozens.

Scotrail/ TPE/ LM all run 170s coupled to other DMUs (158s at Scotrail, other 170s at Scotrail/TPE and 153s at LM), so building replacement "centre cars" would release all these other DMUs. Plus longer 170s would be very handy for XC's Nottingham - Cardiff service (I appreciate longer 170s can't be used at some stations on the Stansted line)...

 

[ainsworth74]

172 centre cars would be a lot different to the 170s.

What would be so different about them? I'm not suggesting you could just drop them straight into a 170, but surely it would take much adapting?

But it might mean fitting the whole unit with new engines if the same engines are no longer in production

Well if wiki is right () the 170s appear to use a slightly older version of the engine being used on the 172s, so hopefully the logistics of maintenance wouldn't be overly complicated by this. However I'm not expert on MTU built engines!

 

[dk1]

I was told that as they are non-standard the plan is to use them on certain peak diagrams but normally confine them on Southminster & Harwich Town shuttles.

 

[MCR247]

What would be so different about them? I'm not suggesting you could just drop them straight into a 170, but surely it would take much adapting?

- A 172 uses mechanical transmission opposed to hydraulic transmission
- A 172 uses different bogies
- A 172 has more hp (that could be changed though)

There may be more, but that is all of the ones I know of, apart from minor things like having different windows etc

 

[swt_passenger]

Don't they need more EMUs to replace the 170 duties south of Ipswich?

It's basically the extra EMUs they have already got (ie the 17 x 321s) that (amongst other changes) is allowing them to withdraw the 170s from the Liverpool St services. That aspect of the performance improvement plan or whatever it's called is already happening in Dec this year.

 

[MCR247]

I was told that as they are non-standard the plan is to use them on certain peak diagrams but normally confine them on Southminster & Harwich Town shuttles.

Why are they? They are basically 321s

 

[YorkshireBear]

Indeed it does seem like it would be easier to get blood from a stone. But I've been wondering (prompted by watching another rammed 170 from Hull this afternoon) whether it would be possible to tack on an order for additional 172 centre cars and make them work with the 170s that TPE have (or for that matter any TOC with 2 car 170s). My reasoning being that this a design that is actually being built so surely actually getting the extra vehicles wouldn't be that hard?

Or even transfer the two car 170's to london midland to get rid fo the rest of their sprinters (nearly not sure if its enough) and get TPE some 172's with ganway connection...

 

[MCR247]

The point in that being? Why not get LM more 172s?!

 

[YorkshireBear]

just to give FTPE the gangway connections.... its not so bad not having gangway connections on a stopping service

 

[MCR247]

But its another class, why not just give them to LM

 

[YorkshireBear]

well i know, but if you remove all the 170's to LM then its no different to how it is now for TPE except they have gangway connections to help them

 

[MCR247]

But then, for no reason, TPE need to train drivers, maintenence etc on these trains, where there is no gain

 

[YorkshireBear]

i did just give a reason....

and okay i get it

 

[MCR247]

So they get gangway connections, and have to train staff on them and maintenance crews on them etc and LM would then have to pay for them to be re-livered and the units would be non-standard. Is that worth it?

 

[YorkshireBear]

"and okay i get it " ......... that meant to signify okay, i hadnt realised ,i agree with you.

 

[dk1]

Why are they? They are basically 321s

Sorry, no idea. Just what i was told.

 

[lm321412]

Back to the topic sorta;

Why not give the 322s to LM and use them out of Soho depot to boost the Cross City & Walsall lines?

LM want extra trains for their Birmingham commuter routes but cannot get the Northern 323s are there is no new EMUs coming for them at the moment...

The 5 units could make 5 of the 323 diagrams 6 coaches throughout the day...

 

[Simon Poole]

Back to the topic sorta;

Why not give the 322s to LM and use them out of Soho depot to boost the Cross City & Walsall lines?

LM want extra trains for their Birmingham commuter routes but cannot get the Northern 323s are there is no new EMUs coming for them at the moment...

The 5 units could make 5 of the 323 diagrams 6 coaches throughout the day...

That could work for the Walsall line, free an couple of 323, put them on the Birmingham to International/Coventry services and use some of the Class 350's on different services like an Northampton to Crewe to make the 350's 30 Minutes up and down the Trent Valley Line

 

[MCR247]

Would it really be that easy with paths?

 

[Invincibles]

That wouldn't work - you'd be sending the two trains out within 10mins of each other if thats the case.

The best pathing would be to send one behind the Super Voyager to Chester, up the slows from Euston to MK, fast through Weedon and pull it over at Rugby to get out the way of the following Pendo (which calls at MK anyway). Then send it up TV to Stafford, straight on to Liverpool. The other one runs via Stoke, and fit it in the gap at the opposite side of the timetable.

I must confess I did not know the timetable of the London Midland trains on the trent valley and was just looking for a time when a Stafford train could get out just in front of a Virgin train through the two track section. Seems the Chester one is better then

There is a suggestion that there could be a path though

Or is this what "GNWR" want?