Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Beano123]

Fair enough. Not so of Hadfield, though I imagine if it's that tight at present it might not be desirable to retime because it might require an extra unit/crew and longer layovers.

Neil

The problem with Hadfield is that TfGM and Derbyshire County Councils are paying for trains to do Manchester - Diniting - Glossop - Hadfield - Glossop - Dinting around the triangle. That requires 3 changes of ends (3 mins each station - Glossop, Hadfield, Glossop) which slows things down considerably. Add in the fact that the linespeed are low and it can require some quick driving round triangle to keep things on time. The rest of the run isn't to bad for timings. Further problems arise from the fact that the whole triangle is one train working with track circuits - any delay on one train will knock onto the next train coming onto the triangle. The Guide Bridge - Manchester end is reasonably slackly timed (off peak, some of the peak timings are very tight too) so trains can get into and leave from Piccadilly on time.

The only easy way to slacken the timings is to drop out one of the calls at Glossop out, like we do at the moment in leaf fall, but the councils don't approve of it really. Alternatively the linespeed could (and should) be raised in certain sections but the aim of this would be to initially increase resilience in the timetable. Another idea might be to have 3 trains an hour running permanently up to Hadfield/Glossop, or to run tram trains, but both of those ideas will be a long time coming.

On the Macclesfield - Stoke Section there are a few stretches where 100mph would be achievable - I don't think that the 100mph running would make up for the slower acceleration. The bank out of Macclesfield would certainly slow things down, then after a decent run, you'd need to bring it down to Congleton, start again and possibly hit 100mph before Kidsgrove and after that its 90mph or lower to Stoke. The amount of time at 100mph would be balanced by the slower acceleration and braking compared to a 323.

The Crewe line is 100/110 for most of the way. After Adswood Road (4 track section) there's nowhere to loop trains easily. Apparently Network Rail do not like booking things into Celford Loops as they want to keep them empty for STP workings. There is a back road at Sandbach but using it would conflict with freight off the Slow lines and the Middlewich Branch. On the non-stop Alderley Edge to Holmes Chapel services 100mph is possible for a decent distance. On the stopper you might get up to 100mph between Chelford and Goostery and maybe between Holmes Chapel and Sandbach but nowhere else.

At the moment apart from the 2 morning diesel runs I don't think that 319s would be able to keep to time anywhere, even with 100mph running.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only easy way to slacken the timings is to drop out one of the calls at Glossop out, like we do at the moment in leaf fall, but the councils don't approve of it really.

It could be argued that if you ran alternate trains round the triangle in opposite directions, that would maintain an hourly service each way between Glossop and Hadfield while making the timetable more resilient.

Neil

 

[broadbander]

the 0606 Crewe via Stockport, returns as the 0739 Crewe to Salford Crescent

I believe that the 06:06 Crewe via Stockport now returns as the 07:22 Crewe to Bolton

 

[Bright Boy]

In Reference to how many electric units NR would need to cover diagrams, I would suggest as many as possible.

The Northern Hub electrification scheme will be opening up several routes where electric traction can be used :-

Manchester Victoria - Bolton - Chorley - Preston - Blackpool North
Manchester Oxford Road - Liverpool Lime St
Blackpool North - Wigan - Liverpool
Liverpool - Warrington BQ
Preston - Hazel Grove
Leeds - Huddersfield
and
Liverpool - Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge
Manchester Victoria - Huddersfield
if the Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge line is being electrified

this is on top of the Manchester Piccadilly - Airport/Crewe/Stoke/Hadfield lines

and it could open the gates to new routes as obviously electric is a lot cheaper than diesel

such as an electric service from Manchester Airport - Wigan via Eccles possibly extending to Windermere (if that is electrified) in competition with TPX if they continue to neglect the Windermere line (just as a suggestion on my part)

So any thought of some of the 323's going to West Midlands is unthinkable for NR (or whatever it is called after re-franchising)

anyone have any thoughts on other routes the Northern franchise could change/open to electric ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

such as an electric service from Manchester Airport - Wigan via Eccles possibly extending to Windermere (if that is electrified) in competition with TPX if they continue to neglect the Windermere line (just as a suggestion on my part)

I believe it is very likely Windermere will go to Northern at the next franchising round, quite possibly Barrow as well.

As I dislike TPE I think that is probably a good thing.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Manchester Oxford Road - Liverpool Lime St

Incorrect. The line via Warrington Central is not being electrified.

Liverpool - Warrington BQ

There has been suggestions this will go and Victoria-Earlestown-Lime Street will become half-hourly all day.

Preston - Hazel Grove

The long term future of this service isn't guaranteed. The option of using the existing Hazel Grove path to provide an extra Buxton/Sheffield service has been examined. If that happens running Preston-Alderley Edge (or somewhere else) is still possible but that's one less EMU required.

Manchester Victoria - Huddersfield

Long term future of that service is very uncertain. DfT have asked TPE to submit a track application for two semi-fasts between Piccadilly and Selby/Hull which will form replacements for that service. They've also asked for a path to be secured for a Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper but the introduction of that service isn't confirmed.

such as an electric service from Manchester Airport - Wigan via Eccles possibly extending to Windermere (if that is electrified) in competition with TPX if they continue to neglect the Windermere line (just as a suggestion on my part)

Northern would be unlikely to get a path between Wigan and Preston to do that. The Windermere and Barrow lines are not likely to be included in the next TPE franchises meaning all the services on those two lines will be Northern regardless.

 

[po8crg]

Blackpool won't be able to take EMUs until after the 3 month closure from mid-December 2016: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...l-investment-in-Blackpool-continues-2112.aspx So the EMUs for Blackpool won't be the responsibility of the current franchise.

Won't the Blackpool services become Preston terminators during the closure?

 

[Starmill]

I believe it is very likely Windermere will go to Northern at the next franchising round, quite possibly Barrow as well.

As I dislike TPE I think that is probably a good thing.

Neil

A very bizarre claim, and I struggle to see how Northern vs TPE is relevant to what stock is in use...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It could be argued that if you ran alternate trains round the triangle in opposite directions, that would maintain an hourly service each way between Glossop and Hadfield while making the timetable more resilient.

Neil

It depends what the requirements of those providing the subsidy are. Presumably they want passengers to be able to travel from Glossop to Hadfield and vice versa, both 2 times an hour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That isn't true. Network Rail decides the paths, remember Virgin couldnt have an 0815 service for some time from piccadilly as there werent paths available. If Virgin had the sort of power you allude to then that would not have happened. The hadfields don't impact on Virgin services as they use separate lines. Any problems on the other lines could be negated by the fact that 319s can do 100 which would be more use (after Macclesfield in particular). Plus the Crewe line is able to regulate late services much better by its ability to loop trains at a few places.

Technically Network Rail and the ORR have the final decisions yes. But if a requirement for Northern and one for Virgin's plan are diametrically opposed to each other, which do you think is more likely to win out?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A very bizarre claim, and I struggle to see how Northern vs TPE is relevant to what stock is in use...

What's a bizarre claim? My dislike of TPE as a company (I find it institutionally arrogant yet providing a very poor service) and as a concept (I don't believe it should ever have been split from Northern), or Barrow/Windermere to Northern? The former is my opinion, while the latter does feature as a suggestion in recent consultation papers about the new franchises. It is also suggested that the Blackpools would go fully to Northern, which to me definitely makes sense.

It depends what the requirements of those providing the subsidy are. Presumably they want passengers to be able to travel from Glossop to Hadfield and vice versa, both 2 times an hour.

I'd imagine they do. However, you can't always have what you want. Perhaps the price might increase to allow an extra EMU to be added to the circuit to provide this. But this bit is just conjecture, unlike the above, and the most likely outcome is the 323s staying.

Neil

 

[Haywain]

Any problems on the other lines could be negated by the fact that 319s can do 100 which would be more use (after Macclesfield in particular). Plus the Crewe line is able to regulate late services much better by its ability to loop trains at a few places.

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rely on that 100mph capability though. They are a bit underpowered in reality with only one vehicle powered and they struggle to get going (and keep going) in the rain, with wheelslip being quite noticeable.

Talk elsewhere of reducing the sets to 3 cars also overlooks the fact that the non-driving trailer carries equipment (and toilets) that would need to be rehoused, so it is not as simple as some seem to believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rely on that 100mph capability though. They are a bit underpowered in reality with only one vehicle powered and they struggle to get going (and keep going) in the rain, with wheelslip being quite noticeable.

Are they all that different to 321s? LM always seemed to be able to get decent performance out of theirs.

Neil

 

[IrishDave]

Re-timing some of the Northern services by only 3 minutes would require Virgin to change the times of their services and it doesn't work that way - Virgin decide what paths they want and Northern have to fit their services around the Virgin ones.

That isn't true. Network Rail decides the paths, remember Virgin couldnt have an 0815 service for some time from piccadilly as there werent paths available. If Virgin had the sort of power you allude to then that would not have happened. The hadfields don't impact on Virgin services as they use separate lines. Any problems on the other lines could be negated by the fact that 319s can do 100 which would be more use (after Macclesfield in particular). Plus the Crewe line is able to regulate late services much better by its ability to loop trains at a few places.

Both of these points of view are over-simplifying matters - the operators bid for paths, and then Network Rail has to moderate them all and decide who gets what, and if Network Rail can't accommodate them all then the ORR and DfT can get involved.

Virgin's paths, though important, are not completely immovable - in particular the headline 0700 Manchester-Euston was retimed in December 2012 from an 0858 arrival into Euston to 0900, thanks to London Midland's changes to the Trent Valley paths and the introduction of 110mph running on the Euston-Crewe services. That rippled to turn the 0901 and 0904 arrivals into 0904 and 0907 respectively. So a few minutes' flex is perfectly possible, provided it doesn't cause insurmountable problems further down the line.

On point of fact, the reason the 0815 Manchester-Euston didn't run for many years wasn't the lack of a path for the train itself, but rather the lack of a path to get the train out of Longsight depot at 7:30 in the morning and into Manchester Piccadilly - the timetable was written before anyone stopped to consider ECS movements!

At the moment apart from the 2 morning diesel runs I don't think that 319s would be able to keep to time anywhere, even with 100mph running.

What about the Manchester-Alderley Edge workings? Two self-contained diagrams on reasonably short runs, that are often replaced by a diesel which can keep to the same timings anyway - sounds (to me) like an ideal candidate for two 323 diagrams that can be run by 319s.

 

[Haywain]

Are they all that different to 321s? LM always seemed to be able to get decent performance out of theirs.

Neil

No idea, as I've very little experience of travelling on 321s whereas I've many years of travelling almost daily on 319s. On a dark winter morning, you can tell that it is or has been raining by the jerky departure from a station! In dry weather performance is good, but I know some drivers feel that 100mph is only achievable going downhill with a following wind.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would be a backward step for LM replacing 350s with 321/322. The 350/2 replaced the 321s originally.
I cannot see the point at present in transferring /2 and /4 to Northern at present as there is no first class on Northern services.
Some could of course be earmarked to replace 323s on services such as Crewe-Manchester were there are platforms long enough to take them. A friend of mine who drives 323s at Piccadilly has told me that they know of no plans to be trained on 319s.

Northern Rail's Interim Franchise Agreement specifies that the 323s must be retained at least until the leases expire in Feb 2016. If the Interim Agreement is extended beyond that date, it requires that any substitute rolling stock must have:

(a) at least the capacity specified in respect of the original rolling stock vehicles being substituted; and
(b) reliability, capability and objective quality that is at least equal to the reliability, capability and objective quality of the original rolling stock vehicles being substituted

That would seem to rule out 319s.

It could be argued that if you ran alternate trains round the triangle in opposite directions, that would maintain an hourly service each way between Glossop and Hadfield while making the timetable more resilient.

Neil

I think the main issue is that journey times between Glossop and Manchester are extended if the routing is via Hadfield. Glossop station has a larger catchment area than Hadfield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the main issue is that journey times between Glossop and Manchester are extended if the routing is via Hadfield. Glossop station has a larger catchment area than Hadfield.

Presumably that is why the service swaps direction around lunchtime, such that the prevailing flow to/from Glossop always gets the quicker service?

Neil

 

[Starmill]

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rely on that 100mph capability though. They are a bit underpowered in reality with only one vehicle powered and they struggle to get going (and keep going) in the rain, with wheelslip being quite noticeable.

Talk elsewhere of reducing the sets to 3 cars also overlooks the fact that the non-driving trailer carries equipment (and toilets) that would need to be rehoused, so it is not as simple as some seem to believe.

Indeed. Just how long, I wonder, would it take a 319 to reach 100 mph?

 

[Greybeard33]

Presumably that is why the service swaps direction around lunchtime, such that the prevailing flow to/from Glossop always gets the quicker service?

Neil

Yes. But outside the leaf-fall season, the direct Dinting-Hadfield chord is only used in the peaks - clockwise in the morning, anti-clockwise in the evening. The off-peak (2tph) services always run Dinting-Glossop-Hadfield-Glossop-Dinting, with only 4 minutes between successive trains occupying the single line at Dinting and only 3 minutes reversal time allowed at Hadfield and Glossop. See Beano123's previous post.

 

[samuelmorris]

Are they all that different to 321s? LM always seemed to be able to get decent performance out of theirs.

Neil

1072KW on a 321 versus 990KW on a 319 apparently. Not a huge difference, but 321s aren't exactly the quickest units off the mark as it is.

 

[WatcherZero]

A 319 set is also 3 tonnes heavier, 7.0KW p/t on 319 vs 7.7KW p/t on 321. So both together mean a 10% higher power to weight performance on 321, though naturally that might not translate into higher acceleration at the rail.

Eversholt list acceleration of a 321 as 0.55ms-2 while Porterbrook list acceleration of 319 as unknown (as they do for most of their pre-privatisation stock) they do however list performance of the 323 as available 'upon request' suggesting they have tested it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed. Just how long, I wonder, would it take a 319 to reach 100 mph?

If they are anything like the older 317s they won't have any trouble reaching 100mph.
We are only talking about a few sections of Northern operation on WCML Virgin routes that are cleared for more than 90mph.

 

[AM9]

A 319 set is also 3 tonnes heavier, 7.0KW p/t on 319 vs 7.7KW p/t on 321. So both together mean a 10% higher power to weight performance on 321, though naturally that might not translate into higher acceleration at the rail.

Eversholt list acceleration of a 321 as 0.55ms-2 while Porterbrook list acceleration of 319 as unknown (as they do for most of their pre-privatisation stock) they do however list performance of the 323 as available 'upon request' suggesting they have tested it.

But Porterbrook are trying to sell the 319 performance upgrade to the tOCs so it is in their interest to create a poor impression of them. As has been said before, they have been inteleaved with the HSTs and 222s on the MML for years on what is one of the fastest London approaches, with relatively few problems.

 

[northwichcat]

Won't the Blackpool services become Preston terminators during the closure?

Probably but then the closure won't happen before the end of the current franchise, so obtaining EMUs for Preston/Blackpool services will still be the responsibility of the next franchise not the current one.

 

[driver_m]

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rely on that 100mph capability though. They are a bit underpowered in reality with only one vehicle powered and they struggle to get going (and keep going) in the rain, with wheelslip being quite noticeable.

Talk elsewhere of reducing the sets to 3 cars also overlooks the fact that the non-driving trailer carries equipment (and toilets) that would need to be rehoused, so it is not as simple as some seem to believe.

If you travel or work on them thats a fair comment, but the way some people have described 319s on here, you'd think that a steam train would offer better performance. I've followed enough 323s to know that they're not as wonderful as people make them out to be on here, especially at this time of year. I'd sooner have a 321 in front of me or a 350 (which have outstanding acceleration). Ultimately though all this talk is pointless anyway if they're staying on services on the newly electrified lines anyway. Until Piccadilly drivers sign 319s, its not happening.

 

[WatcherZero]

But Porterbrook are trying to sell the 319 performance upgrade to the tOCs so it is in their interest to create a poor impression of them. As has been said before, they have been inteleaved with the HSTs and 222s on the MML for years on what is one of the fastest London approaches, with relatively few problems.

So you believe they want to intentionally reduce the length and income from the trains they lease rather than feeling compelled to accept the income loss to meet customer requirements?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you believe they want to intentionally reduce the length and income from the trains they lease rather than feeling compelled to accept the income loss to meet customer requirements?

They are a private company, so their role is to maximise income from their assets to their shareholders.

Neil

 

[samuelmorris]

If you travel or work on them thats a fair comment, but the way some people have described 319s on here, you'd think that a steam train would offer better performance. I've followed enough 323s to know that they're not as wonderful as people make them out to be on here, especially at this time of year. I'd sooner have a 321 in front of me or a 350 (which have outstanding acceleration). Ultimately though all this talk is pointless anyway if they're staying on services on the newly electrified lines anyway. Until Piccadilly drivers sign 319s, its not happening.

Even so, only have a single power car does make me question their comparative performance in poor adhesion conditions. On some wet days the acceleration of a 321 can be really blunted (I've done 319s in wet weather but only in the central TL core where it's mostly undercover and line speeds very low).

 

[Bright Boy]

Northern (or whatever the new franchise is) could take the TPX paths, TPX will run via Chorley after electrification, and if as you say Northern will get the Windermere/Barrow services (not confirmed yet) they could run electric Manchester - Parkside Jct - Wigan - Preston - Blackpool in competition with TPX and Manchester - Parkside Jct - Wigan - Preston - Lancaster - Barrow/Windermere services on alternate hours partly in competition with TPX.

With electric units they will be faster on the WCML to fit into the paths available hopefully.

 

[Geeves]

Its faster than a HST!



[Youtube]woaqJxkLfAA[/Youtube]

 

[Bright Boy]

What's a bizarre claim? My dislike of TPE as a company (I find it institutionally arrogant yet providing a very poor service) and as a concept (I don't believe it should ever have been split from Northern), or Barrow/Windermere to Northern? The former is my opinion, while the latter does feature as a suggestion in recent consultation papers about the new franchises. It is also suggested that the Blackpools would go fully to Northern, which to me definitely makes sense.

It makes more sense to me if both franchises ran services on Manchester - Blackpool/Barrow Windermere services creating true competition with each other, which would bring reduced fares, faster services, more reliable services, and better quality trains, Northern previously were hardly in a position to do this when it inherited mostly old Pacers and Sprinters, compared to the 185's of TPX, but with electrification and the possibility of Northern getting more modern electric units (not 319's unless upgraded and renovated) they would have a chance to compete with TPX on nearly level terms.

When the BR was privatised, and the franchise system proposed, it was originally(supposedly) intended to create competition such as this, but the governments of them days pulled back from full and true competition in order to protect shareholders (mostly themselves) and created the franchise system we have today where there is little true competition.

Fixed prices, poor services and low quality trains is what we are left with where the passenger, (once his or her money has been passed onto the rail companies shareholders) is cared little about and frustrated with delays, cancellations and bus replacement services.

If you want a better TPX (one which you may like more:roll and a better Northern, maybe you should be suggesting something like the model I have stated above!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its faster than a HST!



[Youtube]woaqJxkLfAA[/Youtube]

The 323's are fairly fast also, but only 3 carriages:cry:.

 

[12CSVT]

Its faster than a HST!



[Youtube]woaqJxkLfAA[/Youtube]

Not for long. Even a class 104 DMU could outpace a Deltic coming out of York for about the first half mile (as I witnessed for myself several times in my younger days).