London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[MCR247]

The 350/1s retained their third-rail shoes for a few years after manufacture, I think they've been removed or at least isolated now but certainly while they were on loan to Southern.

I don't think they kept them after manufacture - AFAIK the shoes are stored in a cupboard at Northampton and were (re?)fitted for the loans to Southern and removed once over

 

[Peter Sarf]

I wasn't suggesting them for cross city - 323s only.

Whichever way, LM will need extra units for the Chase line soon, so what will they be and where will they come from? 319s would look the obvious choice, given their availability, or the frequently repeated option of a swap of some 323s with Northern, who get more 319s for Crewe, etc services. Costs involved all round, naturally....

My view is the 319s are similar to the 321s that LM are losing. So a lot more driver training would be required if the 319s were to be used in the Midlands instead of where the 321s currently operate - i.e. Euston.

Also I imagine the 350s would not be suitable for the Cross City line in Birmingham. This is bacause as far as I recall the platforms are the right length for a pair of 3-car class 323s but not long enough for a pair of 4-car 350s. There would also be a 25% (roughly) loss in seating capacity for all lines effected swapping 350s/319s for 319s.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which is what the existing 321s are doing anyway.

Exactly.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I still think the logical deployment of 319s is in the West Midlands, displacing 350s from Walsall-Wolves back to Euston services, including St Albans Abbey, with more 319s arriving to cover the Chase line. Increases the number of 323s for Cross-city, 350s for WCML and concentrates the 319s around Brum with only WM depot crews needing trained on them. OK, so issues to overcome such as clearance for the 350s on the Abbey branch (surely not impossible? can't recall any major structures which may be the cause of the issue) and crew training, but any redeployment of stock involves such matters and I can't see anything wildly complicated to prevent this.

Well I agree that there will be an effort to give Cross City more 323s. But I think this will be achieved by pushing more 350s into the Midlands on services that interwork with the Wolverhampton-Rugby corridor. The 350s will be freed up by the South end of the WCML getting more 319s for services that do not work on the fast lines. If I remember correctly not all 350 subclasses are equal. Different seating layouts and a top speed of 100mph for some and 110mph for others (for the fast lines of the WCML).

I has just occurred to me that LM will get 10 319s as that is the same number of units as the 350/4s working for transpennine - which I guess LM would like to have !. Of course the 350/4s are going to be working amongst Northern 319s arent they !. But I suspect the ten 350/4s are 110mph ?.

 

[wellwhatitis]

I still think the logical deployment of 319s is in the West Midlands, displacing 350s from Walsall-Wolves back to Euston services, including St Albans Abbey, with more 319s arriving to cover the Chase line. Increases the number of 323s for Cross-city, 350s for WCML and concentrates the 319s around Brum with only WM depot crews needing trained on them. OK, so issues to overcome such as clearance for the 350s on the Abbey branch (surely not impossible? can't recall any major structures which may be the cause of the issue) and crew training, but any redeployment of stock involves such matters and I can't see anything wildly complicated to prevent this.

Training the crew at Crewe, Wolverhampton, New Street and Coventry would involve significantly more numbers than the southern depots. All of these depots sign the Wolves-Walsall route.

 

[ScotGG]

I was on a Southeastern networker in snow a few years back. Poor thing took about 2 hours to do a 20 minute journey.

On the subject of Southeastern, Networkers and 319s, any further info on the Modern Railways story this month that Southeastern are pushing for some 319s from Thameslink for Vic services so more networkers routes can go 12 car? I don't suppose that is possible by Aug 2016 and the timetable change? There's some long peak time gaps on a few SE metro routes in the draft timetable - 15-20 minute intervals at peak times. 319s on Vic routes to Orpington and Dartford would allow a lot of other services to be 12 car, which is needed sooner rather than later.

 

[Qwerty133]

I wasn't suggesting them for cross city - 323s only.

Whichever way, LM will need extra units for the Chase line soon, so what will they be and where will they come from? 319s would look the obvious choice, given their availability, or the frequently repeated option of a swap of some 323s with Northern, who get more 319s for Crewe, etc services. Costs involved all round, naturally....

350/4s from TPE, with class 319s replacing them to give the north a unified fleet maybe.

 

[John1975]

I was on a Southeastern networker in snow a few years back. Poor thing took about 2 hours to do a 20 minute journey.

On the subject of Southeastern, Networkers and 319s, any further info on the Modern Railways story this month that Southeastern are pushing for some 319s from Thameslink for Vic services so more networkers routes can go 12 car? I don't suppose that is possible by Aug 2016 and the timetable change? There's some long peak time gaps on a few SE metro routes in the draft timetable - 15-20 minute intervals at peak times. 319s on Vic routes to Orpington and Dartford would allow a lot of other services to be 12 car, which is needed sooner rather than later.

This is an excerpt of a letter from Southeastern to the London Assembly Transport Committee.

As explained, we submitted a report to DfT in February which showed the severity of the
current overcrowding problem, and how this will get progressively worse, such that by the
end of the current Franchise this will undoubtedly be the defining issue for Southeastern.
Analysis has shown that the only possible short term solution is for the redeployment of
Class 319 trains as they are released off contract from GTR as part of the overall
Thameslink Programme.
We are working closely with both GTR and DfT to present a costed proposal to DfT that
would allow a decision to be made in terms of funding and timescales. We also remain
convinced of the necessity, in addition to the 319s described above, for DfT to exercise the
Priced Option present in our Franchise Agreement which would see a further 25 Class 377
units for use by Southeastern sub-leased from GTR, albeit to commence service in late
2017.
The timescales required for enhancements to stabling facilities for these initiatives mean that
decisions on these issues will need to be made soon so as not to import delays where units
are potentially spare, but not able to operate in traffic as there is nowhere to place them
when not in service.

https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s47935/Appendix 1 - Letter from Southeastern.pdf

 

[Stats]

On the subject of Southeastern, Networkers and 319s, any further info on the Modern Railways story this month that Southeastern are pushing for some 319s from Thameslink for Vic services so more networkers routes can go 12 car?

Southeastern were due to submit a detailed proposal for additional stock at the end of June.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I was on a Southeastern networker in snow a few years back. Poor thing took about 2 hours to do a 20 minute journey.

On the subject of Southeastern, Networkers and 319s, any further info on the Modern Railways story this month that Southeastern are pushing for some 319s from Thameslink for Vic services so more networkers routes can go 12 car? I don't suppose that is possible by Aug 2016 and the timetable change? There's some long peak time gaps on a few SE metro routes in the draft timetable - 15-20 minute intervals at peak times. 319s on Vic routes to Orpington and Dartford would allow a lot of other services to be 12 car, which is needed sooner rather than later.

My money is on Southern retaining those spare 319s and sub-leasing a requisite number of 377s to South Eastern. My assumption is that it would require less driver training that way.

 

[ScotGG]

Thanks for the replies. Good to see SE doing something. I fear the DfT will see SE's subsidy figures and refuse, when that is caused by HS1 which mainly serves areas way out in Kent and longer trains within London/NW Kent metro routes are what is needed. Ditto with 377s - wouldn't that be higher track access costs than 319s?

 

[northwichcat]

Ditto with 377s - wouldn't that be higher track access costs than 319s?

377s have lower track access costs than 319s but newer trains generally have higher leasing costs than older ones.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks for the replies. Good to see SE doing something. I fear the DfT will see SE's subsidy figures and refuse, when that is caused by HS1 which mainly serves areas way out in Kent and longer trains within London/NW Kent metro routes are what is needed. Ditto with 377s - wouldn't that be higher track access costs than 319s?

Ah. Reminds me that TFL might be eyeing up some more Metro services to take over. Could/should be good BUT they could well get indigestion one day ?.

 

[hwl]

Ah. Reminds me that TFL might be eyeing up some more Metro services to take over. Could/should be good BUT they could well get indigestion one day ?.

If you took SE Metro services out of the rest of SE it would make the subsidy figures look very bad because of the HS1 costs which may not work (politically) for DfT overall.

After the WAML issues I worry that SE metro which would be about 3 times bigger might be too much to tackle in one go with the station improvements, rolling stock refurbs, as well as additional stock to run more full length services.

With the existing stock retained (Some 319s if they get taken on might get replaced as oldest and smallest in number?) the TfL Overground effect might loose its golden image as the actual improvements for commuters would be less than on West Anglia.

If SE metro were too big to take over and do it well in one go would splitting a TfL takeover into phases work better, i.e. take over Victoria SE Metro Services first then via London Bridge 2 years later or vice versa?

Some infrastructure works might be needed to make big improvements in certain places like a Dartford Station rebuild or Woolwich Dockyard.

 

[ScotGG]

Solution to the subsidy issue for HS1 is for the DfT to change how its measured surely? Current system clearly doesn't work if its holding back a much wider part of the country.

Improvements would be noticeable after 2018 as London Bridge would be finished. LO specific improvements could be 24 hour weekend running (DfT are less likely to push this) as well as more trains in the evenings and weekends.

As for stock - the networkers need a proper refurb. TfL may be more likely to speed that up. 24 years old and not great inside but many years life left in them.

Woolwich Dockyard needs doing. I'd move the station slightly west so equidistant between Woolwich Arsenal and Charlton. There's a ton of housing to be built slightly west and a new station could be part funded by that. Dartford was rebuilt last year wasn't it?

Plus extra staffing and halting the large levels of fare evasion would be another LO win. A phased program for an LO takeover may work but seems tricky. Vic metro routes going to LO first and running with 319s?

With all this in mind - a mixture of things that are happening anyway they could ride the coat-tails of, things that have to happen, things TfL are more likely to push, plus utilising what exists in a better way, then SE Metro would be another LO success story. Massive potential not being realised right now.

 

[AM9]

It happens a lot with DMUs. 170+153 formations on London Midland, 142+158 on Northern, 165+168 on Chiltern.

170+153, which one is the metro then, the one with the sliding doors, which means the 153 is the express?

 

[Nym]

170+153, which one is the metro then, the one with the sliding doors, which means the 153 is the express?

They both have plug doors...

 

[fgwrich]

It happens a lot with DMUs. 170+153 formations on London Midland, 142+158 on Northern, 165+168 on Chiltern.

Northern Spirit often used a mix of 153+158 on their Leeds to Glasgow Central service a good few years back. Even came across a picture in an old Rail Mag at work today with double 153!

 

[AM9]

They both have plug doors...

OK I'll accept that mistake, what I meant was: '170+153, which one is the metro then, the one with the 1/3 & 2/3 twin doors, which means the 153 is the express?'

 

[Kristofferson]

I don't think anyone who lives in Watford or Harrow had an expectation of getting a seat anyway. Once you get into the travel card zones on the WCML, the "default" is standing room only. It's part of the price of living in the big smoke... Don't see the appeal myself, but each to their own!

 

[Nym]

Getting a seat in Watford isn't an issue if you don't stand at the city end of the platform, and pretty much the same at Harrow, they're turning more and more into Reading Style commuters...

 

[Tetchytyke]

At the moment when everything runs OK the high-peak trains are absolutely fine for getting a seat. The 1724 is always mobbed, yes, but the 1713 is deserted (it skips Hemel and Berkhamsted) and 1730 is usually relatively quiet in the last two carriages. I get to Euston about 5-10 minutes before the train and only fail to get a seat when a train is short-formed.

It's the shoulder-peak that's bad. The 1634 used to be just about OK as a 12-car so London Midland, in their infinite wisdom, cut it to 8-car. The 1654 used to be OK too, but now it's an 8-car 321 and it is rammed.

Saturday mornings are the worst though. A 4-car 350 is the norm for the morning trains into London, and they're always full and standing after Watford. I guess it costs London Midland money to run the extra carriages.

My concern is when they lose the equivalent of two 321s. The only way they'll claw that back is by cutting carriages off other trains. My train in a morning- 0803 off Hemel- is usually relatively quiet as a 12-car (usually four people in a 6-seat bay on a 350/2), but when it rocks up as an 8-car it is full and standing. I don't see how they can keep everything as a 12-car with the loss of two units.

 

[Silverlinky]

At the moment when everything runs OK the high-peak trains are absolutely fine for getting a seat. The 1724 is always mobbed, yes, but the 1713 is deserted (it skips Hemel and Berkhamsted) and 1730 is usually relatively quiet in the last two carriages. I get to Euston about 5-10 minutes before the train and only fail to get a seat when a train is short-formed.

It's the shoulder-peak that's bad. The 1634 used to be just about OK as a 12-car so London Midland, in their infinite wisdom, cut it to 8-car. The 1654 used to be OK too, but now it's an 8-car 321 and it is rammed.

Saturday mornings are the worst though. A 4-car 350 is the norm for the morning trains into London, and they're always full and standing after Watford. I guess it costs London Midland money to run the extra carriages.

My concern is when they lose the equivalent of two 321s. The only way they'll claw that back is by cutting carriages off other trains. My train in a morning- 0803 off Hemel- is usually relatively quiet as a 12-car (usually four people in a 6-seat bay on a 350/2), but when it rocks up as an 8-car it is full and standing. I don't see how they can keep everything as a 12-car with the loss of two units.

I guess thats indicative of how the "peak" seems to have moved! LM probably still consider that people finish work at 5 and stengthen services between half 5 and half 7 say, when in effect its almost as busy "on the shoulder" as you say.

The Saturday issue is an infuriating one. I know that the morning trains are packed and often only formed of 4 coaches, and yes of course it does cost LM to put extra coaches out there. Also, the /2's are mileage critical being as they're used for almost their entire quota of contracted miles Monday-Friday. However, when enough people complain, as they seemed to for Saturday night services ex Euston for example (seeing many trains formed of 12 coaches after 9pm now) then something may get done!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What is classed as a "packed train"? Obvioulsy if everyone turns up a minute or two before departure time it gets very packed in a certain part of the train, but you'd be surprised how many peak trains seem rammed in 8 carriages but have 4 with plenty of room in them!
Similary those "savvy" enough to move to a different place on the platform, or turn back on themselves at Euston as highlighted above might think that a train is quiet, where as someone on the same train standing in the middle considers it to be packed! And after all, its only the latter group of passengers who will complain!

 

[jopsuk]

I guess thats indicative of how the "peak" seems to have moved! LM probably still consider that people finish work at 5 and stengthen services between half 5 and half 7 say, when in effect its almost as busy "on the shoulder" as you say.

To a certain extent this will have been written into the train service levels in the ITT and then the franchise agreement by the DfT.

 

[158722]

One of the most debated EMU related topics on here...

Latest issue of Modern Railways reporting that the next Northern franchise will not feature any 323s, irrespective of the winning bid, due to a decision by the leasing company (Porterbrook).

That should set the cat amongst the pigeons.

So, 319s to Hadfield and the Stoke stoppers?

 

[Bungle965]

One of the most debated EMU related topics on here...

Latest issue of Modern Railways reporting that the next Northern franchise will not feature any 323s, irrespective of the winning bid, due to a decision by the leasing company (Porterbrook).

That should set the cat amongst the pigeons.

So, 319s to Hadfield and the Stoke stoppers?

Will 319s keep to the 323 timings??

 

[Fincra5]

Will 319s keep to the 323 timings??

Timetables can always be amended. ..

 

[158722]

Will 319s keep to the 323 timings??

I refer the honourable gentleman to the 3,947 posts on the subject to date.

Apparently not.

 

[Bungle965]

Sorry must have missed that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Presumably they are off to LM as part of some direct award decision?
It does widen the scope for new EMUs at Northern, though.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will Northern have enough 319s going to them to cover the loss of the 323s? Who will likely get the 323s - LM?

 

[158722]

Will Northern have enough 319s going to them to cover the loss of the 323s? Who will likely get the 323s - LM?

LM would seem the obvious candidate for the 323s - they would be sufficient to cover the Chase line when wired, displace 350s on the Walsall-Wolves and still have a few left over for extra capacity.

I do wonder if this is connected with the rumours of LM loosing its 350/2s in favour of 319s and (eventually) 350/4s ex-TPE, with the 350/2s moving to Northern.