New trains for Northern

[Bletchleyite]

I found an old timetable online that shows roughly that timetable operating - the TPEs from Barrow are 0922, 1125, 1325, 1525 and 1721 (slightly off-Takt as the stops vary) then way off pattern at 2007 and 2143, the Northern locals slot in in the opposite hour:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjbp8f_pojuAhWDi1wKHcY6BbMQFjAEegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rsc.org%2FConferencesAndEvents%2Fconference%2Fdownloadfile.cfm%3Ffname%3Dtrain%2520timetable.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1f6kC3wgLps6Q-35Nvn3AJ

Edited: layovers seem to vary, and it's not quite 2 hourly northbound (the expected 1510 ish arrival at Barrow is missing).

 

[Kite159]

Maybe order more 331s, but with a more high density style interior. Ie less tables and mostly airline style seating to allow more seats. Similar sort of interior to the 350/1s or 387s

 

[Wolfie]

CAF bi-modes would be great in my opinion. 769s won’t last long and many Northern routes could use bimodes, such as:
Manchester to Barrow/Windermere
Southport to Alderley Edge
Manchester to Buxton
Manchester to Rose Hill Marple

Who says that 769s won't last? Lots of spares potentially available from the Mk3 based EMUs being withdrawn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe order more 331s, but with a more high density style interior. Ie less tables and mostly airline style seating to allow more seats. Similar sort of interior to the 350/1s or 387s

If you want 3+2 seated EMUs, lease the 350/2s. They are better built than any of the cheap rubbish CAF might churn out.

 

[Wolfie]

If you want 3+2 seated EMUs, lease the 350/2s. They are better built than any of the cheap rubbish CAF might churn out.

Spot on. They'd probably last longer

 

[HST43257]

This could be a way of giving Morecambe a regular Manchester service too - a lot of people are stuck in a British Rail mentality whereby demand for Morecambe services is all about Leeds rather than Manchester Because That's How BR Used To Do It - but I think it'd be a simple extension for a handful of services a day.

No need for reversals at Lancaster. No need for any Morecambe to Manchester OR Leeds service. Run it as a shuttle to Lancaster. 9 mins single trip, 6 min turnaround, 9 min return trip, 6 min turnaround. Perfect 30 minute reliable single unit shuttle. Hydrogen/Battery trial, anyone?

 

[Kite159]

If you want 3+2 seated EMUs, lease the 350/2s. They are better built than any of the cheap rubbish CAF might churn out.

3+2 seating belongs in the bin. 2+2 seating but with more airline style seats with less tables.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Spot on. They'd probably last longer

They're excellent units, we don't want to lose them, TBH, Aventras will be rattly rubbish in comparison. If you don't want 3+2, just swap the seats as EMR are doing with theirs.

 

[YorksLad12]

... but the 333s doesn't seem unlikely, the windscreen is facing issues, the PIS apparently can't have new stations and they have corrosion issues so it seems fairly likely the additional 331s will be to replace these.

The screens can be reprogrammed (and have been), the announcements can't and have to be made manually.

Naturally, clearance complications and the need for a 'cheap and fast' solution precluded this. Which is most unfortunate. 195s/331s are too narrow for 3+2.

No. In my experience, with 2+2 you can pretty much guarantee four people sitting. With 3+2 (especially in facing bays with no table) you can't. Better to have fewer seats but filled than more seats not being.

The current interior layout of 331s isn't the best for commuter routes, so they may be able to add a few more seats by removing some of the tables. Another option could be pairs of 331/0s on the Leeds - Ilkley / Skipton services, with the 331/1s being used on the Bradford services which are typically quieter

In the three-car sets, only have airline seating in the two outer cars. You could probably do something similar with the four-car sets as well. Also means passengers have a choice: centre car if you want a table, outer car if you don't.

I would certainly extend all the 195s to 3 though. 2-car DMUs have no place on the mainline.

They do... but not with cab ends. A 3-car minimum would be my choice as well, but we'd need to extend some platforms, such as Leeds P17 which is one car too short at the moment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

3+2 seating belongs in the bin. 2+2 seating but with more airline style seats with less tables.

Because of the door layout, you don't gain many seats by doing that and cramming in another row on 350s. Looking at the TPE seating plan it appears to be just 6 seats on those or 8 on the LNR layout (fewer luggage racks), and that causes those centre sections to be horribly cramped and lose window alignment. Not worth it.

 

[Halish Railway]

Shame that the Morpeth - Newcastle services now run through to Carlisle, rather than just Metro Centre, as a battery unit would be great on a Morpeth - Metro Centre route (short section of shunting at Morpeth and also from Gateshead to Metro Centre are unnelectrified, but a 100mph EMU would be much better use of a path on the ECML than a 75mph DMU path). That brings the problems of a micro fleet though.

There was a plan to stop running cross-Newcastle services and Northern went so far to put in a track access plan (I can’t remember which timetable change it was planned for) that interestingly also included 2tph between Newcastle and Morpeth, making a potential micro-fleet less “micro”.

It’s a common sight on this forum to see the notion of micro-fleets be mooted, but let’s not forget that Neville Hill was home to a total of three EMUs for around 5 years.

 

[Greybeard33]

If you want 3+2 seated EMUs, lease the 350/2s. They are better built than any of the cheap rubbish CAF might churn out.

350s have no place in a standardised Northern EMU fleet because they have 20m carriages. 323s, 331s and 333s all have 23/24m carriages, which better suit Northern platform lengths.

 

[Wolfie]

They're excellent units, we don't want to lose them, TBH, Aventras will be rattly rubbish in comparison. If you don't want 3+2, just swap the seats as EMR are doing with theirs.

I actually agree with you. I'm a big fan of 350s (and their SWR counterparts).

 

[Neptune]

Whatever anyone thinks of the Civity's they are here to stay. Northern want standardization of the fleet (hallelujah) and the easiest place to start is the EMU fleets. Replacing like for like may be the best start (16 x 4 car to replace the 333's and 34 x 3 car to replace the 323's).

As for standardizing the diesel fleet here are some musings:-

Crayons out

- Can a bi-mode Civity be ordered? (diesel/electric with an option to convert to full electric should the knitting ever go up across the network). This would go a long way to replacing the entire diesel fleet.

- Also could the 195's be converted to bi-mode by extending the units by at least 1 vehicle and converting them from hydraulic transmission to electric.

- The battery idea is good but is still limited. Ideal for the likes of the Windermere branch and Newcastle - Metro Centre and even on routes which are largely off wires but have the range for that section (Leeds - Sheffield via Moorthorpe etc. as mentioned above for instance).

- Could a rural fleet of 3 car Civity diesel/electric bi-modes be produced internally fitted with either a better layout or if it were possible be based on the class 397 body with a class 331 style cab and still be able to work in multiple with the core fleet.

Crayons back in the box!

The above are all hypothetical questions and could be a possible way around standardizing the fleet and more importantly keeping it as green as is possible. Pure diesel has had its day and should have gone a long time ago.

Of course cost would be an issue but large orders generally garner more favourable rates as with everything in life.

I'm inclined to think that the simplicity of standardising on an entirely 3-car CAF fleet, run singly or as pairs, would have a considerable benefit.

If, for example, you could have everything on Castlefield running in that manner, you could mark door positions or even have pseudo-platform edge door fences which would help control the baying mob.

Basing the entire fleet around a short section of track in Manchester is daft. The North is so much more than that.

Adding 4 car units and even 5 car units into this would allow a much more flexible formation across the whole network so long as every service was diagrammed correctly.

 

[scrapy]

Not really. Just make Windermere - Airport and Barrow - Airport each 1tp2h, then the diagrams can be independent. That is what was originally planned when the 331s were ordered for Windermere, before the electrification was cancelled.

To make Barrow and Windermere 1tp2h the origins destinations need to swap at the airport. Eg. Train arrives from Barrow goes back to Windermere. Otherwise you would need to either have long layovers at the airport (approx 1h 10 min each) for which there isn't the platform capacity. Alternatively you'd have to turn the train straight back to the airport at Windermere without doing a shuttle to Oxenholme, resulting in only 1tp2h on the Windermere branch halving frequency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To make Barrow and Windermere 1tp2h the origins destinations need to swap at the airport. Eg. Train arrives from Barrow goes back to Windermere. Otherwise you would need to either have long layovers at the airport (approx 1h 10 min each) for which there isn't the platform capacity. Alternatively you'd have to turn the train straight back to the airport at Windermere without doing a shuttle to Oxenholme, resulting in only 1tp2h on the Windermere branch halving frequency.

Or you run another unit up there to do the shuttles.

 

[Neptune]

Or you run another unit up there to do the shuttles.

Is there capacity on the branch for 2 units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there capacity on the branch for 2 units?

There is a siding just south of the Oxenholme platform which could potentially hold one. Or run the shuttle as a through service from Lancaster bays which would improve connectivity significantly.

 

[HST43257]

To make Barrow and Windermere 1tp2h the origins destinations need to swap at the airport. Eg. Train arrives from Barrow goes back to Windermere. Otherwise you would need to either have long layovers at the airport (approx 1h 10 min each) for which there isn't the platform capacity. Alternatively you'd have to turn the train straight back to the airport at Windermere without doing a shuttle to Oxenholme, resulting in only 1tp2h on the Windermere branch halving frequency.

Looking at a potential timetable I made based on @Bletchleyite’s service pattern, I can’t see how this would be the case.

MIA - BIF - MIA
MIA - WDM - OXN - WDM - MIA
Those are the 2 diagrams, both needing 3 units each.

If a 10:28 from Man Airport went to Barrow, It’d have about a 14 minute turnaround then back at its origin by 16:00, ready for the 16:28. Similarly, if a 11:28 from Man Airport went to Windermere, It’d have about a 14 minute turnaround there, before shuttling to Oxenholme and back. It’d then be going back towards Manchester, getting into the Airport around 17:00, ready for the 17:28. This means that Windermere services can be battery 331s (or normal if the branch is wired) and Barrow can have bimodes.

Instead of me explaining any more, I’ll attach it in this post. The Barrow to Carlisle services aren’t shown to help services line up on my timetable idea. It just shows the main points for services waiting as well as starting/terminating. It’s a 2 hourly cycle.

 

[Anvil1984]

There was a plan to stop running cross-Newcastle services and Northern went so far to put in a track access plan (I can’t remember which timetable change it was planned for) that interestingly also included 2tph between Newcastle and Morpeth, making a potential micro-fleet less “micro”.

It’s a common sight on this forum to see the notion of micro-fleets be mooted, but let’s not forget that Neville Hill was home to a total of three EMUs for around 5 years.

It was planned for the December timetable change. Can't remember it saying Newcastle to Morpeth going 2tph, Newcastle to Middlesbrough was though

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good idea to have the "waste 5 minutes to fix the Takt" northbound stop at Carnforth where it wouldn't be in the way - didn't think of that. Southbound there's the "loop" platform.

 

[hwl]

From this thread.

TLDR; Northern have said they are planning more new trains in this, more specifically 331s.

They say they are doing it for fleet standardisation, the other EMU fleets are 333s, 323s and 319s (soon to be replaced by 323s though). 323s seem unlikely, they decided to take on more from WMT so there will be a fleet of around 30 of them. 319s are getting replaced anyway but the 333s doesn't seem unlikely, the windscreen is facing issues, the PIS apparently can't have new stations and they have corrosion issues so it seems fairly likely the additional 331s will be to replace these.

Northern will need some more EMUs when Leeds - York and Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge are electrified as part of TRU if approved to operate the stopping services.

 

[Greybeard33]

Northern will need some more EMUs when Leeds - York and Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge are electrified as part of TRU if approved to operate the stopping services.

And potentially more still if Lostock - Wigan is wired too.

 

[js1000]

Not sure why the surprise. Northern have consistently said they are looking to procure more new units - not so much in terms of capacity but to homologise their fleet to reduce operating costs significantly in terms of reducing staff training and maintenance costs. I would expect any more 195/331s to be a small order for bi-mode units.

Northern's passenger figures actually look relatively stable compared to other franchises such as long distance routes and London commuter services which seem to be most at risk from the effects of Covid and shift to WFH.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Its a pity no bidder for Northern wanted or was allowed to do a total fleet replacement in 2015, along the lines of Greater Anglia whose rural lines have had a whopping upgrade in rolling stock quality. 156 and 150's won't last forever

 

[Fokx]

Northern will need some more EMUs when Leeds - York and Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge are electrified as part of TRU if approved to operate the stopping services.

Manchester Vic to Stalybridge will eventually (and sadly) be 769’s if the service continues to operate to Southport so that won’t be an issue

 

[tbtc]

Maybe order more 331s, but with a more high density style interior. Ie less tables and mostly airline style seating to allow more seats. Similar sort of interior to the 350/1s or 387s

Sounds nice, but if the idea is "standardisation" then having a subfleet of "high density" 331s will create some diagramming issues

No need for reversals at Lancaster. No need for any Morecambe to Manchester OR Leeds service. Run it as a shuttle to Lancaster. 9 mins single trip, 6 min turnaround, 9 min return trip, 6 min turnaround. Perfect 30 minute reliable single unit shuttle. Hydrogen/Battery trial, anyone?

Would be great - I was just making the suggestions I did on the assumption that any "battery" units would need to be on diagrams that were under the wires for a significant amount of the time.

Morecambe should have been a frequent stand-alone shuttle years ago, rather than an irregular service based on the fact that people from West Yorkshire used to go on holiday there a hundred years ago.

There was a plan to stop running cross-Newcastle services and Northern went so far to put in a track access plan (I can’t remember which timetable change it was planned for) that interestingly also included 2tph between Newcastle and Morpeth, making a potential micro-fleet less “micro”.

It’s a common sight on this forum to see the notion of micro-fleets be mooted, but let’s not forget that Neville Hill was home to a total of three EMUs for around 5 years.

I wasn't aware of the plan to double the frequency but sounds good - two 100mph EMUs per hour may be easier to path on the ECML than one 75mph DMU

Whatever anyone thinks of the Civity's they are here to stay. Northern want standardization of the fleet (hallelujah) and the easiest place to start is the EMU fleets

Really? Rather than the DMU fleet of...

• 150/0 - no corridor connection, three coaches - 75mph
• 150/1 - no corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 150/2 - corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 155 - corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 156 - corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 158 - corridor connection, two coaches - 90mph
• 158 - corridor connection, three coaches - 90mph
• 170 - no corridor connection, three coaches - 100mph
• 195/0 - no corridor connection, two coaches - 100mph
• 195/1 - no corridor connection, three coaches - 100mph

....so just the ten types, some of which are tiny (before anyone comes up with ideas for 175s or 185s or anything else)

If you want standardisation of the fleet then how about swapping the 170s for some 156/158s, or dumping the seven 155s?

Whereas, with EMUs, it doesn't matter if "Manchester" has a different fleet to the "Leeds" fleet, since there's nothing electric running between the two cities, so they are completely separate (whereas running "Leeds" services through to Blackpool/ Southport/ Chester etc means that the DMU fleet needs to have some degree of standardisation)

 

[Fokx]

....so just the ten types

Eleven including the class 153

 

[Halish Railway]

I wasn't aware of the plan to double the frequency but sounds good - two 100mph EMUs per hour may be easier to path on the ECML than one 75mph DMU

Sorry, false alarm! I misinterpreted the track access application. The additional Newcastle to Morpeth services substituted for the planned to be removed Carlisle to Morpeth services.

Taken from this thread:

Northern Consultation Dec 2020

First post. Hope it is in the right place. I haven't seen any reference to the consultation process which suggests large changes in the north east in December 2020 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/sale-of-access-rights (open at "current track...

www.railforums.co.uk

“Increases:
 Morpeth- Newcastle – Increase in 13 passenger slots weekday and Saturday (including 1 morning peak) and increase of 1 on a Sunday
 Newcastle- Morpeth – Increase in 12 passenger slots weekday and Saturday (including 3 evening peak) and an increase of 2 on a Sunday (also combine 1 sat Newcastle-morpeth slot
and remove line)

Reduction:
 Carlisle – Morpeth – Reduction in 11 passenger slots weekday and Saturday and remove line
 Morpeth – Carlisle – Reduction in 12 passenger slots weekday and 11 Saturday – remove line”

Back to the idea of 331s to Morpeth, I think that they would be extremely useful as their superior acceleration to Sprinters would allow additional stops to be put in, such as Killingworth and Annitsford.

 

[Energy]

Really? Rather than the DMU fleet of...

• 150/0 - no corridor connection, three coaches - 75mph
• 150/1 - no corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 150/2 - corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 155 - corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 156 - corridor connection, two coaches - 75mph
• 158 - corridor connection, two coaches - 90mph
• 158 - corridor connection, three coaches - 90mph
• 170 - no corridor connection, three coaches - 100mph
• 195/0 - no corridor connection, two coaches - 100mph
• 195/1 - no corridor connection, three coaches - 100mph

....so just the ten types, some of which are tiny (before anyone comes up with ideas for 175s or 185s or anything else)

To be fair that is 3 families of trains, Sprinters, Turbostars and Civities and although not sharing any parts the 170s can work with Sprinters. I don't really agree with your classification, the subclasses will have very significant amounts in common so counting them seperately is not fair. I would classify it as

• 150
• 153/155
• 156
• 158
  Half a point as not all 158s have the same engine but share other components
• 170
• 195

Ordering new diesel trains is politically impossible, ordering 195s would be very difficult with the 2040 date so close. The much better choice is electrification, have a look at the list of Northern routes operated by DMUs, you'll notice there are routes between big cities which aren't electrified such as Manchester to Leeds (although I think this is happening as part of Transpennine electrification, still not electrifying the whole thing though) and the Calder Valley Line.

Ideally we should be electrifying and then making do with existing 195s, 170s and 158s on the remaining routes.