Distribution of Northern EMUs after the arrival of the WMR 323s

[Halish Railway]

*Note to the moderators - I couldn’t find a thread similar to this that looked at the 323s in particular.

After the arrival of the 17 Class 323s, how will Allerton’s Class 323 and 331 fleets be used? We know that they intend to use 323s coupled to each other, however, I am unaware of any route on the western side of the Pennines that can accommodate 6 coaches without SDO which the 323s lack.

 

[Nym]

Given that they're likely following the BR design language, ASDO or SDO would be relatively trivial to fit.

Also, Manchester to Preston via Bolton can support 6x23m.

 

[Dspatula]

323s aren’t cleared to run via Bolton as yet I’d like to assume that’s paperwork but it might be something more costly.

Layton, Leyland and Woodsmoor are all regular stops which are not long enough (although Layton might just be too short on the paperwork). Salwick, Adlington and Blackrod are on the peak time and late night trains and are also not long enough for 6 x 23m.

Given the site at Salwick is expected to close it probably wouldn’t be too hard to push that on to the Blackpool south train the rest of the platform extensions come to a total of 245m in the worst case scenario as some of the platforms seem longer than they claimed to be on the paperwork and you probably only need to do two platforms of Leyland but it’s a physical solution so it’s not likely to happen, I have my doubts that ASDO would be easy to fit to a 25 year old train but it does seem the kind of thing they’re more like to try.

 

[PHILIPE]

*Note to the moderators - I couldn’t find a thread similar to this that looked at the 323s in particular.

After the arrival of the 17 Class 323s, how will Allerton’s Class 323 and 331 fleets be used? We know that they intend to use 323s coupled to each other, however, I am unaware of any route on the western side of the Pennines that can accommodate 6 coaches without SDO which the 323s lack.

Would this thread help ?

vhttps://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-323s-refurbishment-and-cascade.161365/page-33#post-4379546

 

[Bevan Price]

323s aren’t cleared to run via Bolton as yet I’d like to assume that’s paperwork but it might be something more costly.

Layton, Leyland and Woodsmoor are all regular stops which are not long enough (although Layton might just be too short on the paperwork). Salwick, Adlington and Blackrod are on the peak time and late night trains and are also not long enough for 6 x 23m.

Given the site at Salwick is expected to close it probably wouldn’t be too hard to push that on to the Blackpool south train the rest of the platform extensions come to a total of 245m in the worst case scenario as some of the platforms seem longer than they claimed to be on the paperwork and you probably only need to do two platforms of Leyland but it’s a physical solution so it’s not likely to happen, I have my doubts that ASDO would be easy to fit to a 25 year old train but it does seem the kind of thing they’re more like to try.

Leyland should be easy to restore to longer length. All it needs is to clear the weeds from the unused southern ends of the platforms, and a bit of resurfacing.
Poulton Le Fylde used to be capable of handling long trains - until someone had the brilliant idea of demolishing one end of the station. Otherwise, only Liverpool Lime St., St. Helens Central, Wigan North Western, Manchester Piccadilly (maybe also Oxford Road), Bolton, Preston & Blackpool North seem to be suitable for 6 coach 323 formations in the area of interest. Lancaster would also be suitable, but I don't think that any Northern emus are currently booked north of Preston.

 

[Nym]

323s aren’t cleared to run via Bolton as yet I’d like to assume that’s paperwork but it might be something more costly.

Layton, Leyland and Woodsmoor are all regular stops which are not long enough (although Layton might just be too short on the paperwork). Salwick, Adlington and Blackrod are on the peak time and late night trains and are also not long enough for 6 x 23m.

Given the site at Salwick is expected to close it probably wouldn’t be too hard to push that on to the Blackpool south train the rest of the platform extensions come to a total of 245m in the worst case scenario as some of the platforms seem longer than they claimed to be on the paperwork and you probably only need to do two platforms of Leyland but it’s a physical solution so it’s not likely to happen, I have my doubts that ASDO would be easy to fit to a 25 year old train but it does seem the kind of thing they’re more like to try.

ASDO is actually quite trivial once you get to that sort of age, because the door controls are proper relay systems rather than opaque TCMS or CANBUS systems from companies like IFE with needless multiple voltages and black box controllers that noone really knows how it works.
Compared with that the 323s I believe use good old relays to control their doors, so if these happen to be all in the same box (which they proberbly are).
All you need is a spare twisted pair down the length of the unit / formation which if not available one can use an xDSL link between cars and if WiFi is fitted one can simply back onto that.
And then fit a tag reader to the unit and some controllers and you're done.
Even without that you can fit a controller and reader per car, install some digital IO so it knows the car numbers and away you go.

ASDO isn't really a very difficult system until you start needing to mess about with IFE door controllers.

 

[Dspatula]

ASDO is actually quite trivial once you get to that sort of age, because the door controls are proper relay systems rather than opaque TCMS or CANBUS systems from companies like IFE with needless multiple voltages and black box controllers that noone really knows how it works.
Compared with that the 323s I believe use good old relays to control their doors, so if these happen to be all in the same box (which they proberbly are).
All you need is a spare twisted pair down the length of the unit / formation which if not available one can use an xDSL link between cars and if WiFi is fitted one can simply back onto that.
And then fit a tag reader to the unit and some controllers and you're done.
Even without that you can fit a controller and reader per car, install some digital IO so it knows the car numbers and away you go.

ASDO isn't really a very difficult system until you start needing to mess about with IFE door controllers.

Have any trains been upgraded in with ASDO in the UK as yet?

 

[Nym]

Have any trains been upgraded in with ASDO in the UK as yet?

Yes.

Plenty, and it's relatively trivial.

http://sellacontrols.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ASDO_CSDE_0318.pdf

377s, 378s, 387s, 444s, 450s, 707s using TCMS
195s, 331s and 397s as a standalone.

Class 458/5 as a standalone system.

S Stock as a standalone.

And that's only Sella Controls' equipment, there are other solutions.

 

[_toommm_]

the 185s have them aswell I believe?

 

[Nym]

the 185s have them aswell I believe?

Yup, but I couldn't find the source for that one...

(Also isn't the most successful implementation for reasons I can't go into)

 

[Dspatula]

Interesting if the 323s can be fitted with essentially the same system as the 195/331s that seems like an incredibly easy win for capacity with a more or less known quantity for everyone involved. I assume you wouldn't need all the camera kit related to DCO so the interface could be built into the existing door control panel in the cab and not affect anything for drivers with the added advantage that guards could select the platform in Bi-directional stations instead of using the slower override as they do now on the 195/331s ?

 

[Jamesrob637]

Do WMR simply not bother to uncouple the 323s outside of the peaks? I've been on 6-car Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield services around midday and they were empty! Maybe Northern will keep them coupled all day also.

 

[_toommm_]

Do WMR simply not bother to uncouple the 323s outside of the peaks? I've been on 6-car Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield services around midday and they were empty! Maybe Northern will keep them coupled all day also.

I reckon Northern will keep them coupled personally. There’s nowhere really to store them in the day other than shunting on/off Ardwick or Longsight Excursion Platform, which of course requires a taxi and a driver to fetch the unit.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I reckon Northern will keep them coupled personally. There’s nowhere really to store them in the day other than shunting on/off Ardwick or Longsight Excursion Platform, which of course requires a taxi and a driver to fetch the unit.

Well we know how bringing a 323 out of Ardwick once felt - thanks to Channel 4! However there is already a thread on this excellent series of which I have only watched two so far including the one with the derailment.

 

[markymark2000]

On the Manchester to Crewe via Stockport stopper service, a 6 car 323 could be used at all platforms except Alderley Edge P1 (needs extending by 12 metres) and Chelford Down (needs extending by 15 metres). I don't think the demand is there for a 6 car but at least I have found a route they could be used on with minor adjustments.

Stoke services would need a few more platform extensions and is totally reliant on if P3 at Stoke can be extended.

Liverpool to Crewe via MIA I think needs a few platforms doing. Not sure which and by how much as I don't know if the sectional appendix is upto date (Shows the 2015 track layout in Huyton but shows 2009 under the map. I know some platform extensions are in progress as well. I'm sure Eccles being one of them.

 

[scrapy]

Short extensions would be required at Prestbury and Congleton (down side, towards Manchester) and also Longport (if deemed financially worth it).

The most likely option at Stoke would be to terminate in platform 1, run into the sidings beyond the station and run back out from either platform 1 or 2 depending on pathing which could all be done on existing infrastructure. This couldn't be done until there is a major WCML timetable recast, although could be an option for some peak services.

Extending the current platform 3 would be very expensive as the cross over from the up line would also have to be moved to allow access to it from the up line as it's currently too close, because of existing infrastructure and the fact it couldn't be put on either the road or canal bridge just North of the station for structural reasons, it would have to be moved North to around Sheldon New Rd. This in turn would require a lot of new signalling and make the down line a lot less efficient.

Another expensive, but much less expensive option would be to realign platform 3 so the buffers are in the car park just before the existing exit. This would also require the points to access the platform to be moved North about 20m but would not require the crossover to be moved.

One other obstacle is the platform sighting at Cheadle Hulme platform 3 towards Manchester as it would not be possible to safely dispatch 6 cars. If the guard is in the middle of the train they could only see 2 carriages either way maximum due to curvature. There would need to be a camera system or dispatcher.

As it stands you can run 6 car 323s from Manchester to Stoke but not Stoke to Manchester (not all stops anyway).

 

[Jamesrob637]

On the Manchester to Crewe via Stockport stopper service, a 6 car 323 could be used at all platforms except Alderley Edge P1 (needs extending by 12 metres) and Chelford Down (needs extending by 15 metres). I don't think the demand is there for a 6 car but at least I have found a route they could be used on with minor adjustments.

Stoke services would need a few more platform extensions and is totally reliant on if P3 at Stoke can be extended.

Liverpool to Crewe via MIA I think needs a few platforms doing. Not sure which and by how much as I don't know if the sectional appendix is upto date (Shows the 2015 track layout in Huyton but shows 2009 under the map. I know some platform extensions are in progress as well. I'm sure Eccles being one of them.

Manchester to Crewe via Stockport could easily justify 6-car most of the day if Northern offer £2-3 Advance Singles and LNWR offer sub-£10 Advance Singles to London since the services connect quite well in Crewe. However these Advances would need to be available from the smaller stations as well (even with a 10 or 20 pence supplement) and not just Manchester and Stockport.

Stoke was a 6-car the other day (331s though) however this was late-evening so arrived in P1 without risk of getting in the way of an XC or Avanti. Not sure about loadings on this line but apparently some can be very full by the time they reach Stockport and they call at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme towards Manchester.

Liverpool to Crewe via the Airport is an extremely busy commuter route and once people get wind of longer trains on this route they'll quickly fill up.

All post-COVID-19 of course

 

[markymark2000]

Short extensions would be required at Prestbury and Congleton (down side, towards Manchester) and also Longport (if deemed financially worth it).

One other obstacle is the platform sighting at Cheadle Hulme platform 3 towards Manchester as it would not be possible to safely dispatch 6 cars. If the guard is in the middle of the train they could only see 2 carriages either way maximum due to curvature. There would need to be a camera system or dispatcher.

As it stands you can run 6 car 323s from Manchester to Stoke but not Stoke to Manchester (not all stops anyway).

Manchester to Crewe via Stockport could easily justify 6-car most of the day if Northern offer £2-3 Advance Singles and LNWR offer sub-£10 Advance Singles to London since the services connect quite well in Crewe. However these Advances would need to be available from the smaller stations as well (even with a 10 or 20 pence supplement) and not just Manchester and Stockport.

Stoke was a 6-car the other day (331s though) however this was late-evening so arrived in P1 without risk of getting in the way of an XC or Avanti. Not sure about loadings on this line but apparently some can be very full by the time they reach Stockport and they call at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme towards Manchester.

Liverpool to Crewe via the Airport is an extremely busy commuter route and once people get wind of longer trains on this route they'll quickly fill up.

All post-COVID-19 of course

Manchester to Crewe via Stockport, I'm surprised to hear you say you think it could justify a 6. Whenever I have been on the service, a 2 car service would suffice. It seemed to me a lot of people preferred Avanti/TFW since they were much faster.

As for Stoke, according to the sectional appendix (which I based my comments off), you need Longport (both), Kidsgrove (P1), Congleton (Down), Prestbury (Down) and Cheadle Hulme (P3). As I said previously, I'm not sure if any new extensions have gone into place since the sectional appendix was released.

Liverpool to Crewe via Airport I think would suit a 6 car. The main issue being Chelford (down), Alderley Edge (P1), Gatley (both), East Didsbury (both), Mauldeth Road (Up), Eccles (both), Newton Le Willows (both), Earlestown (P2), St Helens Jct (Both), Lea Green (Both), Rainhill (Down), Whiston (Both), Huyton (P3), Roby (P1 & 3), Broad Green (Both) and Wavertree Tech Park (Both) all need extending. That is a lot of platforms to extend.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Manchester to Crewe via Stockport, I'm surprised to hear you say you think it could justify a 6. Whenever I have been on the service, a 2 car service would suffice. It seemed to me a lot of people preferred Avanti/TFW since they were much faster.

As for Stoke, according to the sectional appendix (which I based my comments off), you need Longport (both), Kidsgrove (P1), Congleton (Down), Prestbury (Down) and Cheadle Hulme (P3). As I said previously, I'm not sure if any new extensions have gone into place since the sectional appendix was released.

Liverpool to Crewe via Airport I think would suit a 6 car. The main issue being Chelford (down), Alderley Edge (P1), Gatley (both), East Didsbury (both), Mauldeth Road (Up), Eccles (both), Newton Le Willows (both), Earlestown (P2), St Helens Jct (Both), Lea Green (Both), Rainhill (Down), Whiston (Both), Huyton (P3), Roby (P1 & 3), Broad Green (Both) and Wavertree Tech Park (Both) all need extending. That is a lot of platforms to extend.

If you extend East Didsbury and Mauldeth Road there may be a case to close Burnage as they're all so close together.

 

[py_megapixel]

Personally I'm interested in whether there will be "323 routes" and "331 routes" or whether they will be interchanged.

Performance wise a 323 and a 331 both accelerate very fast but 323s have a lower top speed so might be suited to more frequent stops (?)

I imagine Glossop will stay pretty self contained with the either two or three 323s each day (can't remember which)
I also imagine Hazel Grove to Blackpool will remain with the 331s because there are a few long sections without many stops.
But the various other EMU services all interwork with each other (except maybe Stoke-on-Trent)

Also, 323s will have to operate out of Victoria as well as Piccadilly I assume.

I assume there are no plans to send 323s east of the Pennines?

 

[markymark2000]

If you extend East Didsbury and Mauldeth Road there may be a case to close Burnage as they're all so close together.

I can't see the 200,000 rail users being happy about. By the same logic, half of the Merseyrail stations should be closed but it's basically a crime to shut a used railway station even if another one is close by. That said, I can see your reasoning and it would make sense, I just don't think it would be doable due to the politics.

 

[py_megapixel]

I can't see the 200,000 rail users being happy about. By the same logic, half of the Merseyrail stations should be closed but it's basically a crime to shut a used railway station even if another one is close by. That said, I can see your reasoning and it would make sense, I just don't think it would be doable due to the politics.

I really don't think it makes sense. Extending the platforms doesn't make the entrances to the stations any closer together - which is what matters for whether people will use them. You aren't going to push Burnage users to Mauldeth Road - you're going to push them into their cars.

Additionally I don't think the impact of stopping at Burnage is so great. Comparing a service which stops only twice between the airport and Piccadilly with one that does all 5 stops, the faster service takes 19 minutes while the slower one takes 22 minutes. That's an average of a minute per station - hardly a drastic journey time increase.

 

[thealexweb]

Where has this suggestion of double 323 running come from?

Is it not simply seventeen more 323s replacing the remaining fifteen 319s. The modest gain in units may not yield many more double diagrams.

 

[Halish Railway]

Where has this suggestion of double 323 running come from?

Is it not simply seventeen more 323s replacing the remaining fifteen 319s. The modest gain in units may not yield many more double diagrams.

Firstly, what are they going to do with all of these extra trains? Also, I’m sure that Northern talked about doubling them up when they announced that they would retain and gain the 323s.

 

[thealexweb]

Firstly, what are they going to do with all of these extra trains? Also, I’m sure that Northern talked about doubling them up when they announced that they would retain and gain the 323s.

Just to clarify it seems there will a net gain of two EMUs. These 323s will either directly do the 319's existing work, go in to a common pool with the 331s and share the work, or displace 331s to do the 319 work.

 

[py_megapixel]

Just to clarify it seems there will a net gain of two EMUs. These 323s will either directly do the 319's existing work, go in to a common pool with the 331s and share the work, or displace 331s to do the 319 work.

I think you may have misunderstood.

The original plan was for 331s to replace the seventeen 323s inherited from Serco-Abellio because Porterbrook wanted all the 323s in the Midlands.
The new plan is for the 331s to replace the fifteen 319s.
The seventeen 323s transferring from the Midlands will be displaced by Aventras and are "extra" from the point of view of Northern.

Because the 331s are having to replace two less units (15 rather than 17) and there are also 17 extra 323s coming, there will be a gain in capacity of 19 units.

 

[thealexweb]

I am broadly familiar with the original plan. The point I was trying to convey was if we compare the available Northern EMUs today to the planned stock for say 2023 the net gain of units will not be much more than right now.

 

[py_megapixel]

I am broadly familiar with the original plan. The point I was trying to convey was if we compare the available Northern EMUs today to the planned stock for say 2023 the net gain of units will not be much more than right now.

Original plan was 15 319s and 43 331s.
New plan is 34 323s and 43 331s.
That's a substantial gain.

Other than the Yorkshire 333s which are staying constant no other stock is planned.

 

[Halish Railway]

I am broadly familiar with the original plan. The point I was trying to convey was if we compare the available Northern EMUs today to the planned stock for say 2023 the net gain of units will not be much more than right now.

Bare in mind that there are quite a few 331/1s set around on the eastern side of the Pennines not doing anything, with 12 units being based there replacing 8 Dusty Bins (which aren’t that intensively used), and two to supplement 333009 and another 333 that would be in works (which is done now), leaving three surplus units now.

The original plan AFAIK was for them to be used around Manchester, mainly going to Hadfield and from Liverpool to Blackpool and Crewe via Manchester.

 

[markymark2000]

I really don't think it makes sense. Extending the platforms doesn't make the entrances to the stations any closer together - which is what matters for whether people will use them. You aren't going to push Burnage users to Mauldeth Road - you're going to push them into their cars.

Additionally I don't think the impact of stopping at Burnage is so great. Comparing a service which stops only twice between the airport and Piccadilly with one that does all 5 stops, the faster service takes 19 minutes while the slower one takes 22 minutes. That's an average of a minute per station - hardly a drastic journey time increase.

I wouldn't promote Burnage being closed but I can see where Jamesrob673 was coming from.