Government set to go ahead with Labour Thameslink and NW plans

[northwichcat]

Do I? Where?

I wasn't meaning you literally write the words 'fair enough' but the lack of questioning the people who give reasons for 319s not remaining on Thameslink.

Posts 2 and 4 give reasons for 319s not remaining on Thameslink. Your first two posts in this thread (7 and 9) ask about whether the DOO statement is speculation and refer to anyone who thinks the 319s will be used in multiple in the North West is living in a dream world.

I think everyone knows the reason 319s are set to go to the North West is because Thameslink needs new trains to go forward and the 319s are not write offs. London Midland and Scotrail have both ordered a lot of new EMUs so that doesn't leave many existing electrified lines requiring a whole load of new EMUs and this does leave the North West with the short straw compared to other areas (except South West) who got brand new trains.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The Liverpool-Warrington diversion to Victoria thing has been around a couple of years longer than electrification has. It wasn't brought in back then so I'd be a little suprised if it was now. The belief seemed to be that it 'only benefitted Eccles and Patricroft' (which have 'good' bus and tram links to Manchester and 'therefore people wouldn't use it anyway') and GMPTE weren't interested in supporting it. I wonder if GNER/GNWRs interest in calling at Victoria, Eccles and Newton Le Willows has changed things?

 

[tbtc]

I think everyone knows the reason 319s are set to go to the North West is because Thameslink needs new trains to go forward and the 319s are not write offs. London Midland and Scotrail have both ordered a lot of new EMUs so that doesn't leave many existing electrified lines requiring a whole load of new EMUs and this does leave the North West with the short straw compared to other areas (except South West) who got brand new trains.

Poor North West with their "short straw". There are lots of other lines which could be electrified and could get four car EMUs to replace shorter Pacers/ Sprinters etc. I'd like to see electrification on Sheffield - Swinton - Doncaster. Moorthorpe, for example. But that isn't going to happen. I'm not complaining. The North West *is* getting lots of money spent on it, yet you are complaining.

Out of interest, would you be griping if Lancashire was getting brand new four coach EMUs? Is your complaint that they are getting cascaded EMUs, or are you genuinely preferring three coach units? Because, if that is the case then the logical thing is to bid for the LM 323s to give a common fleet in Lancashire. Hmm...

 

[northwichcat]

Out of interest, would you be griping if Lancashire was getting brand new four coach EMUs? Is your complaint that they are getting cascaded EMUs, or are you genuinely preferring three coach units? Because, if that is the case then the logical thing is to bid for the LM 323s to give a common fleet in Lancashire. Hmm...

Brand new EMUs could be built to suit the current and future needs of the North West. The same number of carriages that are due to arrive from Thameslink could be ordered but formed differently to better suit North West platform lengths and demand with features like SDO and corridor connectors if deemed necessary.

 

[tbtc]

What is wrong with starting more services from Platform 3 at Manchester Oxford Road and then removing the stop from other services, so allowing more people to board an empty train at Manchester Oxford Road and in turn reducing the number of services having to pass through Piccadilly

Good idea. Knowing that there would be an "empty" train starting there would attract a number of additional people too. At the moment, if you are around the University area and want a train, I'm more tempted to go to Picadilly where I have a reasonable chance of a seat, rather than go to Oxford Road and struggle to get onto the train
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Brand new EMUs could be built to suit the current and future needs of the North West. The same number of carriages that are due to arrive from Thameslink could be ordered but formed differently to better suit North West platform lengths and demand with features like SDO and corridor connectors if deemed necessary.

What "current and future needs of the North West" are there though?

A mix of 3/4/5 car units sounds nice, but could get operationally complicated.

Corridor connectors sound good, but there won't be many services needing doubled up, and its not as if the Pacers have corridor connections...

 

[YorkshireBear]

To be honest i thought the whole thing was to be cancelled so i'm elated even though i live in South yorkshire (west yorks at moment) i will feel small benefits from this even if it is just a few more pacers

This is part of a transformation in northern travel and will help the northern hub i welcome all of it 4 car EMU's are better than anything we have now and will do a fine job in the north west

 

[tbtc]

To be honest i thought the whole thing was to be cancelled so i'm elated even though i live in South yorkshire (west yorks at moment) i will feel small benefits from this even if it is just a few more pacers

This is part of a transformation in northern travel and will help the northern hub i welcome all of it 4 car EMU's are better than anything we have now and will do a fine job in the north west

Agreed

Whilst we all want this on our own local line, I'm happy that Manchester/ Liverpool/ Blackpool are getting this investment, especially as it enhances the prospect of further electrification (e.g. Wigan - Bolton or Manchester - Warrington - Liverpool)

 

[northwichcat]

Corridor connectors sound good, but there won't be many services needing doubled up, and its not as if the Pacers have corridor connections...

It does happen now but it does cause revenue problems for Northern if they run a doubled up service and are unable to use an additional fare revenue person.

Corridor connectors also provide advantages to passengers if both units start overcrowded but one unit empties out quicker than the other.

 

[cle]

Where would be the closest spot east of Manchester to have curves running the reverse of the Ordsall Curve - so that trains could run from Chat Moss through Victoria, and then loop round to Piccadilly?

You could then mix up the paths, by splitting them both 2tph for example, so that both sides of Manchester had the first arrival before the loop. TPE trains could have similar - although being on platform 13 is ideal for the airport, rather than platform 3/4!

 

[northwichcat]

Poor North West with their "short straw". There are lots of other lines which could be electrified and could get four car EMUs to replace shorter Pacers/ Sprinters etc. I'd like to see electrification on Sheffield - Swinton - Doncaster. Moorthorpe, for example. But that isn't going to happen. I'm not complaining. The North West *is* getting lots of money spent on it, yet you are complaining.

Tbh when I've been at Sheffield the only 142s I usually see are on Adwick-Lincoln and Manchester-Sheffield services and occasionally Sheffield-Leeds via Rotherham. From my experience Sheffield Northern services are mainly
2 and 3 car 144s and 158s, so while it's not as good as Leeds with it's many 158s and 333s it's certainly doesn't have the worse traction for a Northern served station.

My local line isn't getting electrified and it's around 40% 142s, 40% 150s and 10% 156s, so a mix of 144s and 158s would be an improvement.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Tbh when I've been at Sheffield the only 142s I usually see are on Adwick-Lincoln and Manchester-Sheffield services and occasionally Sheffield-Leeds via Rotherham. From my experience Sheffield Northern services are mainly
2 and 3 car 144s and 158s, so while it's not as good as Leeds with it's many 158s and 333s it's certainly doesn't have the worse traction for a Northern served station.

My local line isn't getting electrified and it's around 40% 142s, 40% 150s and 10% 156s, so a mix of 144s and 158s would be an improvement.

Two car 158's are used only on express routes, we have around 3-4 150's a day 1/2 on hallam line 1 on sheffield/lincoln - adwick/scunthorpe and 1 on sheffield manchester

rest are 142's 2 car 144's and 3 car 144's

so no its not fantastic and we didnt say the electrification should be going to us we were simply joking saying well if your gonna complain about 4 car 319's then electrifiy us we wont complain.....

 

[tbtc]

Tbh when I've been at Sheffield the only 142s I usually see are on Adwick-Lincoln and Manchester-Sheffield services and occasionally Sheffield-Leeds via Rotherham. From my experience Sheffield Northern services are mainly
2 and 3 car 144s and 158s, so while it's not as good as Leeds with it's many 158s and 333s it's certainly doesn't have the worse traction for a Northern served station.

My local line isn't getting electrified and it's around 40% 142s, 40% 150s and 10% 156s, so a mix of 144s and 158s would be an improvement.

158s on the Leeds - Nottingham and Sheffield - Hull, yes, but not on other Northern services

There's a 153 on the Scunthorpe/ Adwick - Sheffield - Worksop - Lincoln services each day (which worked the Barton line the previous day), plus sometimes 153s stray onto other routes.

Apart from that its pretty much all Pacers on local services (the odd 150, plus I've been on a Hope Valley 156 a few months ago), and pretty much all two car Pacers too.

However, I'm not saying that Sheffield has the worst stock of any Northern station (some stations in the North East only ever get two car Pacers after all...). I'm just giving the example of this city with no electrification and none planned, to contrast to Lancashire (which already has EMUs, and is getting bigger EMUs to replace many Pacers)...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two car 158's are used only on express routes, we have around 3-4 150's a day 1/2 on hallam line 1 on sheffield/lincoln - adwick/scunthorpe and 1 on sheffield manchester

rest are 142's 2 car 144's and 3 car 144's

so no its not fantastic and we didnt say the electrification should be going to us we were simply joking saying well if your gonna complain about 4 car 319's then electrifiy us we wont complain.....

Summed it up better than me

 

[YorkshireBear]

Summed it up better than me

forgot about the 153 though

 

[tbtc]

forgot about the 153 though

I try to forget about it!

I appreciate the need to rotate the Barton units, but I like routes where passengers have a regular quality of service - one reason I think that 319s on most/all Manchester - Preston services will be a good idea.

If you drive, you have a good idea of the reliability, comfort, speed etc. If you take the train instead, you don't want it to be a lottery between whether you get a table to yourself or end up standing outside the toilet all the way.

When you don't know whether the next train will be one coach or two (like passengers from Mexborough to Sheffield don't, with the Pacer/ 153 mix) it turns people off public transport.

 

[sprinterguy]

Where would be the closest spot east of Manchester to have curves running the reverse of the Ordsall Curve - so that trains could run from Chat Moss through Victoria, and then loop round to Piccadilly?

You could then mix up the paths, by splitting them both 2tph for example, so that both sides of Manchester had the first arrival before the loop. TPE trains could have similar - although being on platform 13 is ideal for the airport, rather than platform 3/4!

Reinstating the curve north west of Ardwick depot that connects into the freight only Philips Park Junction to Ashburys freight only line would be the closest. However this wouldn't do much to cut congestion at Piccadilly if services transferred to Victoria were still continuing round to Piccadilly to terminate.

Apart from that its pretty much all Pacers on local services (the odd 150, plus I've been on a Hope Valley 156 a few months ago), and pretty much all two car Pacers too

.
A 156 on the Hope Valley line? Luxury! It's mainly 142s and 150s, as I'm sure you know. I concur with yours' and jimmyowl1992s' summary of South Yorkshire local services.

 

[cle]

Reinstating the curve north west of Ardwick depot that connects into the freight only Philips Park Junction to Ashburys freight only line would be the closest. However this wouldn't do much to cut congestion at Piccadilly if services transferred to Victoria were still continuing round to Piccadilly to terminate.

.
A 156 on the Hope Valley line? Luxury! It's mainly 142s and 150s, as I'm sure you know. I concur with yours' and jimmyowl1992s' summary of South Yorkshire local services.

Couldn't a few extra platforms be built on the car park at the northern end, as mentioned previously as a plan? These wouldn't be reversing for the airport, and obviously kept off P13/14 - but just to reverse trains towards Victoria and then Liverpool/Blackpool?

Better than clogging Vic's through platforms, and we've not heard much on the more intelligent Stalybridge terminating plans.

 

[sprinterguy]

Couldn't a few extra platforms be built on the car park at the northern end, as mentioned previously as a plan? These wouldn't be reversing for the airport, and obviously kept off P13/14 - but just to reverse trains towards Victoria and then Liverpool/Blackpool?

Better than clogging Vic's through platforms, and we've not heard much on the more intelligent Stalybridge terminating plans.

You'd only get a max of two extra platform roads from turning over the car park to rail use, and it is unlikely that anyone would want to surrender the car park for any other use than at present. Quite probably a bigger issue than platform occupancy at Piccadilly (though that is enough of a problem) is the capacity of the station throat from Ardwick to Piccadilly, which is already heavily congested with movements in and out of Piccadilly as well as on the through lines towards Oxford Road, which would be further clogged up by trains sent round an east curve from Victoria.

Given that Victoria only has two pairs of through platforms, and I presume no hope of reinstalling bay platforms at the west end due to the Arena being over the top (I've only ever seen Victoria from the outside so I'm not sure), there must undoubtedly be a limit to just how many extra trains it could potentially handle. Relieving Ardwick-Piccadilly-Deansgate is the more pressing need here though.

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually Northern Hub plan is reinstatment of two western bays at Vic, probably on the viaduct where Exchange station used to be or where the former allignment platforms would have been, either way significant walk from the stations eastern bays.

 

[anthony263]

Could the midland mainline electrification possible be back on after the great western is done?

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news...rand-plan/article-2924152-detail/article.html

 

[ainsworth74]

Could the midland mainline electrification possible be back on after the great western is done?

I would hope so, it would surely make sense to start work on the MML once the GWML was done. Seeing we will have built up knowledge and equipment to wire the GWML it seems a waste to let that rot by delaying the MML wiring until sometime out in the future. Then again rolling programmes of electrification seem to be anathema to governments in this country. Really I fear that it all makes too much sense to ever get past the aspiration stage

 

[swt_passenger]

I would hope so, it would surely make sense to start work on the MML once the GWML was done. Seeing we will have built up knowledge and equipment to wire the GWML it seems a waste to let that rot by delaying the MML wiring until sometime out in the future. Then again rolling programmes of electrification seem to be anathema to governments in this country. Really I fear that it all makes too much sense to ever get past the aspiration stage

A 'rolling programme of electrification' is exactly what was proposed in the NR electrification RUS, which attempts to prioritise areas/routes. I don't think it has ever been suggested that if GW were done nothing else would follow it, the current questions are more about which route to start with, not which will be the last.

This is what makes me wonder when people post as fact stuff like for example 'they'll never electrify to Plymouth, it'll always need bi-mode'. It's completely speculative.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think it has ever been suggested that if GW were done nothing else would follow it, the current questions are more about which route to start with, not which will be the last.

Ahh good news!

I should probably get round to reading some of these RUS's would save myself sounding quite so cynical

 

[northwichcat]

158s on the Leeds - Nottingham and Sheffield - Hull, yes, but not on other Northern services

Apart from that its pretty much all Pacers on local services (the odd 150, plus I've been on a Hope Valley 156 a few months ago), and pretty much all two car Pacers too.

I did forget about the Penistone line being mainly Pacers when I posted earlier.

I'm not at Sheffield regularly or for long periods of time so I posted from my experience like you did on some North West routes earlier in the thread and it's likely there's some errors there just like you said 158s operated on Liverpool-Blackpool when they haven't done for the majority of the length of the Northern franchise.

I don't think Hope Valley is booked to have any 156s so you may have got lucky on that day unless it was quite a while back.

 

[ukrob]

I don't think Hope Valley is booked to have any 156s so you may have got lucky on that day unless it was quite a while back.

There is one booked on a Saturday if I recall correctly

 

[YorkshireBear]

with all the expertese from NW GW we should keep them working and keep rolling out programs on lines that need it.

This is long term so should not be too costly.... means that we may be able to get rid fo pacers quicker too if we can get more commuter lines done. Maybe some of commuter lines around bristol could be done at same time
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is one booked on a Saturday if I recall correctly

Really wow id love to know when

 

[tbtc]

A 156 on the Hope Valley line? Luxury! It's mainly 142s and 150s, as I'm sure you know. I concur with yours' and jimmyowl1992s' summary of South Yorkshire local services.

Indeed, I wasn't expecting anything "fancy" so did a double take when I saw a 156 coming along:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebustocrookes/5172546878/

Wasn't complaining though

 

[mwmbwls]

Where would be the closest spot east of Manchester to have curves running the reverse of the Ordsall Curve - so that trains could run from Chat Moss through Victoria, and then loop round to Piccadilly?

You could then mix up the paths, by splitting them both 2tph for example, so that both sides of Manchester had the first arrival before the loop. TPE trains could have similar - although being on platform 13 is ideal for the airport, rather than platform 3/4!

Looping round to Piccadilly only makes sense if the trains do not terminate there. In the airline business they try to minimise the time the plane is on the ground not earning money but still costing it - Dwell time is not sell time. If a rail circle can be built round Manchester then the best thing to do is have the Victoria terminators run round from Manchester Victoria back through Picadilly and Oxford Road and back whence they came. Wherther this is necessary is debateable because trains from the west go forward from Victoria to terminate at Rochdale, Huddersfield and in some cases Stalybridge,
similarly slow trains from Preston, the obvious candidates for travelling the other way round the loop operate to Hazel Grove and Buxton. Lay overs enabling timetables to be robust occur away from Piccadilly. It makes sense to divert the TPE services via Oxford Road and Victoria using the Castlefield curve to avoid excessive dwell time at Piccadilly coming to and from the airport. In future only the Cleethorpes Sheffield TPE's will need to reverse at Piccadilly but even these could be diverted to run via Heaton Norris and Ashton Moss to circle round via Victoria and back to Piccadilly and the Airport. In the past trains from Buxton have been diverted to Victoria when Piccadilly was shut but there is a time penalty IIRC - the existing route from Edgeley takes 8-10 minutes to Victoria took 20-25 and this is before coming back via Oxford Road. For any of this to work requires platforms 15 & !6 at Piccadilly built over Fairfield Street and a major rejig at Oxford Road.
Finally if the Todmorden curves get built it would be possible to operate either Victoria Bolton Blackburn Burnley Todmorden Rochdale circle service or out and backs to Preston via Blackburn Burnley and Tod returning via Bolton and vice versa. Terminating trains add complexity to signalling and train crew rostering and should be avoided wherever possible - except perhaps at Euston.

 

[cle]

I completely agree - the problem is the Piccadilly throat and many tracks to cross, which is why I suggested the terminating platforms.

But ideally, trains could get across through a flyover and access P13/14. An additional bay here could be dedicated to reversing trains from the TPE route back towards the airport after they came over the flyover!

It would clear the Liverpool - Scarborough trains off the line too - surely these are the first contenders to be diverted via Victoria as it stands due to this full throat crossing? I guess the problem would be the other stations they serve; Birchwood and Warrington.
Maybe a semi-fast from Knutsford/Altrincham or even the Stockport bay, to Liverpool would cover this path nicely.

The Todmorden curve circular services would be ideal. I think you could still have stoppers, but a semi-fast service linking some rather down at hell towns across Lancs with each other, and Manchester - would increase mobility, links and thus prospects immensely. Great idea, and not expensive either. And as you say, no dwells. You could have sprinters running around and around.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, Todmorden-Victoria-Blackburn-Hebden Bridge using current service patterns and no time breaks at Victoria or Blackburn is 2 hours 2 minutes, presumeably the curve at Todmorden would make Blackburn-Todmorden slightly quicker than Blackburn-Hebden Bridge and therefore an hourly service with no dwell time might be possible.

Todmorden-Victoria-Preston-Hebden Bridge is about 2 hrs 25 minutes by the current timetable, again with no break between services. An hourly service could produce a dwell time of half an hour or more at some point, probably at Preston.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe a semi-fast from Knutsford/Altrincham or even the Stockport bay, to Liverpool would cover this path nicely.

If you want a Liverpool service from Piccadilly without using 13/14 there is another possible route. Piccadilly-Stockport-Altrincham-Northwich-Runcorn-Liverpool. If you use a stopping pattern of Piccadilly, Stockport, Altrincham, Knutsford, Northwich, Runcorn, South Parkway, Lime Street. I'd estimate about a 70 minute journey time, which is a bit longer than the 50-55 minutes the Liverpool-Manchester expresses take. However, it would take the around same amount of time between Stockport and Liverpool as the EMT service takes, as well as shortening journey times for some and opening new journey opportunities.

The above could also be speeded up by around 20 minutes by linking the Airport line to the Mid-Cheshire line which would then allow Piccadilly-Airport-Northwich-Runcorn-Liverpool as well as services like Llandudno-Airport-Piccadilly-Hull.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Poor North West with their "short straw".

Just to clarify on this. I was meaning the North West has got the short straw compared to other operators who have received EMUs in the past few years, not compared to all areas.

A mix of 3/4/5 car units sounds nice, but could get operationally complicated.

No need for 3 and 4 and 5 car units to be built. A build of 2 and 3 car units with corridor linkers allows formations of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cars to run and allows extra flexibility over all 4 cars. For example, a service scheduled to be run by a 4 car unit would likely be cancelled if the unit fails, but if it's 2x2 cars it allows for it to be run short-formed. It would also allow for more flexible maintaince schedules and less need for some of the quieter off-peak trains to run as 4 cars.