Manchester & North West Transformation Programme

[northwichcat]

This could be down to the formation of the train. 2x150s just about fit but there has been a few substitutions recently seeing a 150+156 on the route which unfortunately doesn't fit. Long Train Short Platform rules for Northern come into play and it's middles doors only, being manually opened by the guard.

Pairs of the slightly longer 156s are a regular occurrence at weekends. Passengers certainly notice the difference with the tables, arm rests and two seats either side of the aisle. We did used to have some guards only allowing passengers to use the front 2 carriages between Chester and Greenbank but I've been on double formations of 156s where all doors have been released at Hale. Recently I witnessed a guard telling a passenger with a Mobberley ticket that he'd have to alight from the middle door due to a short platform but then when the train stopped he released all the doors anyway!

If the 156s have more seats than the 150s I don't understand why Northern decide to put out 2 car 150s and 4 car 156s on the Mid-Cheshire line at weekends. It would seem more logical to use the higher capacity trains in single formation and to pair up the lower capacity trains.

 

[LOL The Irony]

If the 156s have more seats than the 150s I don't understand why Northern decide to put out 2 car 150s and 4 car 156s on the Mid-Cheshire line at weekends. It would seem more logical to use the higher capacity trains in single formation and to pair up the lower capacity trains.

The difference in seating capacity between a 150 and a 156 is negligible. Then you add on that a 156 has 2+2 seating, means more of those seats are actually usable, so it winds up balancing out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference in seating capacity between a 150 and a 156 is negligible. Then you add on that a 156 has 2+2 seating, means more of those seats are actually usable, so it winds up balancing out.

Advantage of a pair of 156s is that they're gangwayed. Common to see 156+150 on Northern, though, which gives a choice of accommodation.

 

[507020]

Advantage of a pair of 156s is that they're gangwayed. Common to see 156+150 on Northern, though, which gives a choice of accommodation.

I’ve noticed that, but often Northern run 156+150/1s that can’t make use of the gangway, while 150/2s and other 156s run alone elsewhere. On services that get them e.g. Southport I don’t know why anyone would choose the 3+2 Ashbourne seats of the 150 over the 2+2 Chapman seats of the 156 though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve noticed that, but often Northern run 156+150/1s that can’t make use of the gangway, while 150/2s and other 156s run alone elsewhere. On services that get them e.g. Southport I don’t know why anyone would choose the 3+2 Ashbourne seats of the 150 over the 2+2 Chapman seats of the 156 though.

Generally the benefit of choosing the inferior unit (e.g. a 350/2 in a WCML formation or what you say) is that it'll be quieter. A bay of 6 to yourself is better than sitting at a table with others.

 

[507020]

Generally the benefit of choosing the inferior unit (e.g. a 350/2 in a WCML formation or what you say) is that it'll be quieter. A bay of 6 to yourself is better than sitting at a table with others.

I’ve found that the unit at the front of the formation, furthest away from the barriers at the terminus e.g. Southport/Lime Street, even if it is a superior unit like a 156 or a 350/1, /3 or /4, it will be quieter because people haven’t walked all the way to the end. The last time I went on a 350, I made the mistake of getting on at Liverpool South Parkway, not the terminus and the rear set was a 350/2 which had virtually no seats free, but the 350/1 at the front had some in the very front carriage. It emptied out a bit by Crewe.

The thing that really annoys me is on a half empty train, whether I am sat in a bay or 4, 6 or an airline seat, it doesn’t matter how many other seats or whole bays are empty, but some strange passengers have to sit right next to me or insist that I move so they can sit where I am for no reason whatsoever. On several occasions I have been sufficiently disturbed it has caused me to get off and wait for the next one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing that really annoys me is on a half empty train, whether I am sat in a bay or 4, 6 or an airline seat, it doesn’t matter how many other seats or whole bays are empty, but some strange passengers have to sit right next to me or insist that I move so they can sit where I am for no reason whatsoever. On several occasions I have been sufficiently disturbed it has caused me to get off and wait for the next one.

I can't remember that ever happening. Is it particular to that route, I wonder?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The thing that really annoys me is on a half empty train, whether I am sat in a bay or 4, 6 or an airline seat, it doesn’t matter how many other seats or whole bays are empty, but some strange passengers have to sit right next to me or insist that I move so they can sit where I am for no reason whatsoever. On several occasions I have been sufficiently disturbed it has caused me to get off and wait for the next one.

With regard to the emboldened section above, why not bring this to the attention of the train staff?

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to the emboldened section above, why not bring this to the attention of the train staff?

I don't see why "no" wouldn't work, to be honest. Are they going to try and pick you up and move you?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't see why "no" wouldn't work, to be honest. Are they going to try and pick you up and move you?

In my opinion, "no" could lead to an unfortunate heightening of tension, should the person insisting that you should move for no reason, either because they are bullying you or they may have a problem with matters of mental ailment. Not everyone is just the same in their reactions and rather than involving yourself in a situation that could develop badly for either party, a referral to the train staff to act as arbiter is a sensible course of action to take in the situation so described especially if the seat in question had a seat reservation placed upon it.

 

[northwichcat]

I’ve found that the unit at the front of the formation, furthest away from the barriers at the terminus

I find at weekends when there's lot of leisure passengers they tend to board the nearest carriage. On weekdays you can spot the regular passengers who know the service is expected to be a pair of trains and are already waiting at the far end before the train arrives.

but some strange passengers have to sit right next to me

Some lone female passengers prefer to sit near other people on board rather than sitting in an unoccupied section of the train. Presumably because they feel it's safer sitting near to someone who didn't specifically choose a seat near them.

or insist that I move so they can sit where I am for no reason whatsoever.

Only time I experienced that is when two people had seat reservations but didn't board the train their seat reservations were for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only time I experienced that is when two people had seat reservations but didn't board the train their seat reservations were for.

This sort of thing happens so often that I ask to see seat reservations before moving (and in return will show mine without being asked if I'm asking someone to shift). Obviously if they show a reservation for that seat I will move with good grace and apology, but 9 times out of 10 they are either on the wrong train or in the wrong coach. One common source of this issue was when you used to have F, B and A suffixes, which people invariably interpreted wrongly as the coach letter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A little more clarity on the £84m Manchester investments from the Railway Gazette:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/g...nchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article

The package covers track improvements on the Manchester – Liverpool route via Earlestown, and platform extensions at four stations in Cumbria — Dalton, Kents Bank, Oxenholme and Staveley — which will start this summer and be complete by December.

Ahead of the transfer of more Class 323 EMUs from West Midlands Trains to Northern to facilitate six-car operation, a £41∙5m allocation will fund depot improvements and 17 platform extensions on the Chat Moss, Bolton and Styal lines as well as on the Airedale electric routes northwest of Leeds. This work should be completed by summer 2023.

The remaining £26m will go towards design work for improving passenger facilities at Manchester’s Piccadilly and Victoria stations, and planning the re-signalling of the Castlefield Corridor across the city. This would include remodelling of Manchester Oxford Road by the mid-2030s, DfT said.

As ever, it's a confusing mix of real work (mainly platform extensions) and funding for further rounds of design work on future enhancements (if they are taken up).
There's also some shuffling of future priorities, and the CLC and Rochdale electrifications come into this category.

 

[Grumpy Git]

A little more clarity on the £84m Manchester investments from the Railway Gazette:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/g...nchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article


As ever, it's a confusing mix of real work (mainly platform extensions) and funding for further rounds of design work on future enhancements (if they are taken up).
There's also some shuffling of future priorities, and the CLC and Rochdale electrifications come into this category.

Is the CLC wiring definitely going ahead? My worry is given the long lead-time suggested up-thread (2030?), there's every chance the "money will run out" before it's completed?

 

[northwichcat]

Will there be any longer trains on the Stoke line? They were supposed to get extra services at certain stations but those extra services have failed to materialise, with trains remaining the same length.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Noted the recent posting makes mention of platform extensions on the Styal Line, it is not all that long ago that brand new-style platforms were constructed at some stations on that line. What stations on that line are in need of the stated extension?

 

[Mollman]

A little more clarity on the £84m Manchester investments from the Railway Gazette:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/g...nchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article


As ever, it's a confusing mix of real work (mainly platform extensions) and funding for further rounds of design work on future enhancements (if they are taken up).
There's also some shuffling of future priorities, and the CLC and Rochdale electrifications come into this category.

I'm a bit confused about the Airdale platform extensions, I thought this work had already been funded and nearly competed?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

It's a shame they won't consider, if using 6-car formations, doing hourly from the Airport every hour to both destinations, doing any infrastructure work necessary to split/join at Lancaster rather than lengthening the branch platforms. That would be a real upgrade.

There have certainly been 'splits' at Lancaster in the past - during the class 175 era an evening peak five car from Manchester served both Barrow and Windermere, not sure about 'joins' though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There have certainly been 'splits' at Lancaster in the past - during the class 175 era an evening peak five car from Manchester served both Barrow and Windermere, not sure about 'joins' though.

I remember Barrow/Windermere and Blackpool North splits at Preston in the 175 era (obviously wouldn't work now) but not that one. What you did used to get is the XC 158 to Scotland joined with the Barrow/Windermere 156 as far as Bolton, but that really was way back when.

I do think this would be a big upgrade for both places and allow for a long train on the Bolton line to avoid overcrowding.

 

[Whisky Papa]

I’ve noticed that, but often Northern run 156+150/1s that can’t make use of the gangway, while 150/2s and other 156s run alone elsewhere. On services that get them e.g. Southport I don’t know why anyone would choose the 3+2 Ashbourne seats of the 150 over the 2+2 Chapman seats of the 156 though.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I was involved with Northern unit planning a decade or more ago, the Class 150 fleet was not properly divided between 150/1 and 150/2 for diagramming purposes. There was a sub-fleet of (I think) eight Class 150/2 diagrams that included all the paired units that reversed at Knaresborough and needed a gangway connection for crew access. All the other units were diagrammed as a fleet of nominal 150/1s, even though a large proportion of them were actually 150/2 units. It frustrated me that there seemed to be no way to specify using a 150/2 when creating a 156+150 combination, while 150/2s were running alone or coupled to 142s!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I was involved with Northern unit planning a decade or more ago, the Class 150 fleet was not properly divided between 150/1 and 150/2 for diagramming purposes. There was a sub-fleet of (I think) eight Class 150/2 diagrams that included all the paired units that reversed at Knaresborough and needed a gangway connection for crew access. All the other units were diagrammed as a fleet of nominal 150/1s, even though a large proportion of them were actually 150/2 units. It frustrated me that there seemed to be no way to specify using a 150/2 when creating a 156+150 combination, while 150/2s were running alone or coupled to 142s!

Ah, the good old "random unit generator", aka "we don't care about traincrew or passengers as long as it's easier for us".

 

[Greybeard33]

A little more clarity on the £84m Manchester investments from the Railway Gazette:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/g...nchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article


As ever, it's a confusing mix of real work (mainly platform extensions) and funding for further rounds of design work on future enhancements (if they are taken up).
There's also some shuffling of future priorities, and the CLC and Rochdale electrifications come into this category.

Platform extensions on the Bolton and Styal lines suggests that there is an intention to use 6-car 323 formations (no SDO) to replace 331s on the Blackpool - Manchester Airport services. This would enable a swap of 3-car 331s to Yorkshire in exchange for the 4-cars, as originally planned, with 6-car 331s on some Airedale/Wharfedale services to increase capacity.

Will there be any longer trains on the Stoke line? They were supposed to get extra services at certain stations but those extra services have failed to materialise, with trains remaining the same length.

If the 4-car 331s come west, they might be used on the Stoke line to increase capacity.

 

[jonesy3001]

Platform extensions on the Bolton and Styal lines suggests that there is an intention to use 6-car 323 formations (no SDO) to replace 331s on the Blackpool - Manchester Airport services. This would enable a swap of 3-car 331s to Yorkshire in exchange for the 4-cars, as originally planned, with 6-car 331s on some Airedale/Wharfedale services to increase capacity.

If the 4-car 331s come west, they might be used on the Stoke line to increase capacity.

Platforms on the ilkley line need to be extended if they're going to be using 6car 331s on the line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Platform extensions on the Bolton and Styal lines suggests that there is an intention to use 6-car 323 formations (no SDO) to replace 331s on the Blackpool - Manchester Airport services. This would enable a swap of 3-car 331s to Yorkshire in exchange for the 4-cars, as originally planned, with 6-car 331s on some Airedale/Wharfedale services to increase capacity.
If the 4-car 331s come west, they might be used on the Stoke line to increase capacity.

That explains the "EMU swaps" in the embedded chart.
Not sure about the "DMU swaps" though.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Platforms on the ilkley line need to be extended if they're going to be using 6car 331s on the line.

331s have ASDO so 6 cars only need a 4 car platform

 

[jonesy3001]

331s have ASDO so 6 cars only need a 4 car platform

Most platforms only fit 4 car trains apart from ilkley station

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Most platforms only fit 4 car trains apart from ilkley station

ASDO means the doors will only open on the front four coaches hence a 4 car platform being sufficient (even if not ideal) for a 6 car cl331. This is common practice for 6 car class 331s in the North West at platforms which only take 4 or 5 coaches - only the doors on the rear coach remain slocked out at the latter.

 

[Greybeard33]

That explains the "EMU swaps" in the embedded chart.
Not sure about the "DMU swaps" though.

DMU swaps might mean swapping classes between depots/routes after the remainder of the EMR 156s arrive. With the aim of better matching capacity/performance/door configuration to the requirements of each route.

 

[ABB125]

How will it go down in Blackpool if their shiny new electric trains get replaced with nearly 30 years old, slower, inferior interior units?

 

[Watershed]

How will it go down in Blackpool if their shiny new electric trains get replaced with nearly 30 years old, slower, inferior interior units?

Probably not too well, although some would prefer the (not terribly comfortable) 323 seats over the 331 ironing boards.

But in principle, it's no different to what has happened on plenty of other routes in the past, e.g. ScotRail replacing 170s with HSTs.