RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > UK Railway Discussion


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 20th October 2010, 22:49   #1
tbtc
I am the passenger...
Established Member
 
tbtc's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 13,362
Default Lancashire Electrification (the facts and figures)

Assuming the Lancashire electrification happens and it is for the lines between Manchester Piccadilly and Blackpool North (via Bolton and Preston), from Manchester Piccadilly to LIverpool Lime Street (via Eccles) and from Liverpool to Wigan (via St Helens).

As far as we know there are no plans to extend wires to Windermere, Barrow or Southport via Wigan Wallgate.

*so*, assuming all services remain the same (they won’t, of course, but assuming for now...) with the exception of Manchester Airport - Barrow (which becomes a Northern run Lancaster - Barrow service integrated with the existing Carlisle - Barrow - Lancaster service) and the Windermere line (which becomes a self contained shuttle run by Northern)...

...the DMUs saved are as follows:

NORTHERN

Liverpool to Blackpool - hourly service - Three hour round trip = three units

Liverpool to Wigan - half hourly service - Two hour round trip = four units

Manchester Victoria - Blackpool - hourly service four hour round trip - four units

Hazel Grove - Preston - hourly service - three hour round trip = three units

Liverpool to Manchester Airport - hourly service - Three hour round trip = three units

Liverpool to Manchester Victoria - hourly service - Two hour round trip = two units

Liverpool to Warrington Bank Quay - hourly service - Two hour round trip = two units

TRANSPENNINE

Fifteen units (Manchester Airport to Blackpool/ Barrow/ Windermere/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh, interworked)

...BUT, Lancaster to Barrow two-hourly service - two hour round trip = one unit

Windermere branch - hourly service - one hour round trip = one unit

So, by my reckoning that’s seventeen Northern DMUs saved, but two more needed (to cover Barrow/ Windermere), so fifteen net units. Plus fifteen TPE units. So thirty DMUs spare.

Yes, there are some currently doubled up, but that’s a lot harder to quantify. Yes, there is some interworking (And my “rough and ready” figures don’t take that into account). But, that’s how I count it (feel free to do your own figures).

TPE lose fifteen units, which would mean six 185s go to strengthen the core Newcastle service plus nine 170s go spare. The logical place for the 170s would be Scotrail (who could release a number of 158s) or NXEA (who already run 170s and have nine 156s that could be shared between Northern/ EMT). I don’t see the point in giving the 170s to another TOC as a “micro fleet” is hard to maintain, and it’d mean doubling up of services if they went to Cross Country or London Midland.

Northern gain fifteen units, which would mean a few Pacers are freed up. I don’t think we have the luxury of being able to withdraw any just yet, so these would mainly be lumped on to existing services for capacity (ideally coupling Sprinters together to maintain a corridor connection, with Pacers replacing 153s and 153s being tagged on to 155/156s etc). Maybe donate a couple of units (each) to EMT/ ATW/ FGW who could each do with some additional DMUs.

Given that there are 86 319s, and only around thirty needed to convert the Lancashire lines, could other 319s be used to replace the 321s and 323s with Northern? The 321s are four coaches and could add capacity to NXEA, whilst the 323s could go to London Midland for beefing up capacity. However, the 323s are only three coaches - could the platforms on the Glossop/ Stoke/ Crewe lines cope with four coach trains?

(I appreciate that some 319s may be needed later on if the Thames Valley branches are wired up, but once the new Thameslink EMUs arrive they are going to be needed somewhere, and it makes sense to me to share the 321/323s elsewhere and Northern to take a load more 319s)

What do you reckon?

And, yes, a lot of the figures come from Wikepedia, before anyone spots massive holes!
tbtc is offline  
Sponsored links - Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 20th October 2010, 23:09   #2
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,111
Default

seems interesting, so are you suggesting this is under or over estimate?

The problem with TPE getting rid of 170's is that 185's are speed restricted on hull route, so do they want 185's runing regularly on route?

When si the stuff about northern taking over FTPE NW schduled to happen?
YorkshireBear is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:17   #3
me123
Established Member
 
me123's Avatar
 
Join Date: 9 Jul 2007
Location: Elgin
Posts: 5,971
Default

An interesting post, tbtc.

Giving Scotrail the spare 170s would actually be a very good idea. By the time this is all happening, EGIP should be well underway, so that could potentially release a sizeable number of 158s to go back down South (unlike you, I can't be bothered to work out how many, but I wouldn't be surprised if all the 158s could be released and sent to Northern/EMT/where ever they're needed at that moment in time).
me123 is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:32   #4
tbtc
I am the passenger...
Established Member
 
tbtc's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 13,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyowl1992 View Post
seems interesting, so are you suggesting this is under or over estimate?

The problem with TPE getting rid of 170's is that 185's are speed restricted on hull route, so do they want 185's runing regularly on route?

When si the stuff about northern taking over FTPE NW schduled to happen?
I think this is probably a slight underestimate, since there are going to be a number of Lancashire services former of doubled up units (especially with the Pacers replacing the 180s), although interworking of services would mean marginal savings are possible (e.g. if Manchester Airport - Liverpool worked onto Liverpool - Blackpool then would it save one unit?)...

I think we need to bite the bullet on the Hull service and either schedule it to run slower to cope with heavy 185s, or give it to Northern to run it as a "stand alone" Hull - Leeds service with lighter units. Not saying which is better, but 185s run some duties, so it is possible, and I think it'd benefit TPE to have one common fleet if possible.

I'm not saying Northern *will* take over Barrow/ Windermere, but operationally it makes sense (rather than running DMUs from the Lake District to Manchester Airport under the wires for 90% of the journey). I'm sure it'll be criticised if these stations lose their direct service to Manchester, but it looks like we are moving closer to an hourly Manchester Airport - WCML - Scotland service, which would mean the Windermere/ Barrow services being truncated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by me123 View Post
An interesting post, tbtc.

Giving Scotrail the spare 170s would actually be a very good idea. By the time this is all happening, EGIP should be well underway, so that could potentially release a sizeable number of 158s to go back down South (unlike you, I can't be bothered to work out how many, but I wouldn't be surprised if all the 158s could be released and sent to Northern/EMT/where ever they're needed at that moment in time).
I agree with you - I expect the 170s freed up from Scottish electrification to move to cover most 158 routes, which would free up a number of 158s.

However, the problem then is that 156s may be more appropriate for lines like Wick than 170s (if the 158s leave). What to do?

Hmm, rough figures from the top of my head:

Edinburgh - Falkirk - Glasgow = 16 units (doubled up 170s at rush hour taking two hours per round trip every fifteen minutes)

Edinburgh - Falkirk - Dunblane = five units (two and a half hour round trip on a half hourly service)

Glasgow - Falkirk - Dunblane/ Alloa = five units (two and a half hour round trip on a half hourly service)

Chuck in a handful of units saved from Whiffled (two units?), Glasgow - Cumbernauld - Falkirk (three units?), Paisley Canal (two units?), Cumbernauld - Motherwell (one unit), East Kilbride/ Barrhead (five units)...

...and you're talking about forty units. There are forty eight 158s. Now, some 158s are doubled up with other DMUs on these lines, but I reckon they might have to give Scotrail about eight 156s or 170s to give them two DMU fleets. Maybe this is perfect for the nine TPE 170s?

(the maths aren't going to be spot on, there are a number of caveats, I've not included all Kilmarnock services due to Stranraer/ Carlisle interworking, but I reckon if everything planned gets wired in Scotland then there will be enough DMUs saved to release all ScotRail 158s if the TPE 170s head north)

Last edited by tbtc; 20th October 2010 at 23:32. Reason: Double post prevention system
tbtc is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:32   #5
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbtc View Post
I think this is probably a slight underestimate, since there are going to be a number of Lancashire services former of doubled up units (especially with the Pacers replacing the 180s), although interworking of services would mean marginal savings are possible (e.g. if Manchester Airport - Liverpool worked onto Liverpool - Blackpool then would it save one unit?)...

I think we need to bite the bullet on the Hull service and either schedule it to run slower to cope with heavy 185s, or give it to Northern to run it as a "stand alone" Hull - Leeds service with lighter units. Not saying which is better, but 185s run some duties, so it is possible, and I think it'd benefit TPE to have one common fleet if possible.

I'm not saying Northern *will* take over Barrow/ Windermere, but operationally it makes sense (rather than running DMUs from the Lake District to Manchester Airport under the wires for 90% of the journey). I'm sure it'll be criticised if these stations lose their direct service to Manchester, but it looks like we are moving closer to an hourly Manchester Airport - WCML - Scotland service, which would mean the Windermere/ Barrow services being truncated.
ah sorry thought you meant it was happening agree it would make sense though

Where is the weight restrictions is it worth upgrading?
But they could use the extra units then there sorted for capacity for years to come?
YorkshireBear is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:36   #6
tbtc
I am the passenger...
Established Member
 
tbtc's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 13,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyowl1992 View Post
ah sorry thought you meant it was happening agree it would make sense though

Where is the weight restrictions is it worth upgrading?
But they could use the extra units then there sorted for capacity for years to come?
It's a combination of what we know, informed guesswork and complete speculation!

I'm not sure how long the weight restriction is for and how big an issue it really is (the one on the line from Norwich to Peterborough is used as an excuse for no 222s running it, but others say it's really quite minor in the grand scheme of things).

TPE could definately use the extra units, especially from York/ Leeds to Manchester Airport. It's a shame there are no corridor connections on the 185s (for when units are doubled).
tbtc is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:39   #7
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbtc View Post
It's a combination of what we know, informed guesswork and complete speculation!

I'm not sure how long the weight restriction is for and how big an issue it really is (the one on the line from Norwich to Peterborough is used as an excuse for no 222s running it, but others say it's really quite minor in the grand scheme of things).

TPE could definately use the extra units, especially from York/ Leeds to Manchester Airport. It's a shame there are no corridor connections on the 185s (for when units are doubled).
just moved to leeds, and i think that all the time, how can they not of thought they would be needed? it's so stupid it's unbeleivable...

how many stations on TPE route cannot take 6 cars? i can think of one meadowhall which struggles with a 4 car 170, but i dont know north pennine route well enough yet
YorkshireBear is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:47   #8
ainsworth74
Moderator
 
ainsworth74's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Nov 2009
Location: Redcar
Posts: 11,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyowl1992 View Post
how many stations on TPE route cannot take 6 cars?
North TPE on the west side of the Pennines I would expect the only stations that wouldn't be able to take 6 car trains would be Yarm and Thornaby. Yarm's Middlesbrough platform could be extended really easily but the York platform would be a problem as it's blocked by a bridge at one end and a signal at the other.
ainsworth74 is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:48   #9
tbtc
I am the passenger...
Established Member
 
tbtc's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 13,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyowl1992 View Post
just moved to leeds, and i think that all the time, how can they not of thought they would be needed? it's so stupid it's unbeleivable...

how many stations on TPE route cannot take 6 cars? i can think of one meadowhall which struggles with a 4 car 170, but i dont know north pennine route well enough yet
The story is they built them as three cars with an intention to add a fourth, but they then decided not to, and the production line has now been shut/ the emissions are now tighter so no more could be built. One of the problems with building small classes of units...

I'm not sure where can't take six coach units; certainly all of the main Newcastle - Manchester Airport stations can, but it's the "branches" to Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Hull I can't be sure about. They could always run the six coach part east of York/Leeds, but that would mean taking up platform space at York/Leeds. Dunno.
tbtc is offline  
Old 20th October 2010, 23:57   #10
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,111
Default

hmm yeah so after this newcastle can and will be 6 car, dont 6 car often run on scrabrough branch anyway? see pictures regularly.

4 car now would be quite good i think, we wouldnt need much extra capacity for them
YorkshireBear is offline  
Old 21st October 2010, 00:08   #11
WatcherZero
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
Default

Yes probably a slight underestimate as a lot of peak services are doubled.

I guess your assuming no units are required for GWML (which according to Dft press release is still being kicked about and we will find out for sure perhaps next week), a wildcard may also be whether agility is bidding for the Thameslink stock as a combined order with IEP possibly (though slim to zero chance) even ordering some new stock for the North for positive headlines. Agility certainly seems to have said something to the government to get them to reconsider IEP seriously.

Northern RUS suggest using 6 car on Skipley route and expanding Leeds platform capacity, I think some of the services through Bolton may benefit from 6 car as well.

Anyway back on topic theirs also the issue of Merseysides stock of 59 507/508 which is about to life expire, could they use some 319's? as they do have end doors and the increase from 3 to 4 car would be beneficial.
WatcherZero is online now  
Old 21st October 2010, 00:11   #12
ainsworth74
Moderator
 
ainsworth74's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Nov 2009
Location: Redcar
Posts: 11,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyowl1992 View Post
dont 6 car often run on Scarborough branch anyway?
I forgot the Scarborough branch in my above post but thinking about it there are definitely problems at Seamer with unit length as the rear unit of the 6 car set is normal locked out of use from what I've heard. From looking at Google Earth it seems that the current platform is around 125m (a two unit 185 being around 150m) but there is plenty of disused platform so it should be fairly simple to extend it.
ainsworth74 is offline  
Old 21st October 2010, 00:14   #13
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatcherZero View Post
Yes probably a slight underestimate as a lot of peak services are doubled.

I guess your assuming no units are required for GWML (which according to Dft press release is still being kicked about and we will find out for sure perhaps next week), a wildcard may also be whether agility is bidding for the Thameslink stock as a combined order with IEP possibly (though slim to zero chance) even ordering some new stock for the North for positive headlines. Agility certainly seems to have said something to the government to get them to reconsider IEP seriously.

Northern RUS suggest using 6 car on Skipley route and expanding Leeds platform capacity, I think some of the services through Bolton may benefit from 6 car as well.

Anyway back on topic theirs also the issue of Merseysides stock of 59 507/508 which is about to life expire, could they use some 319's? as they do have end doors and the increase from 3 to 4 car would be beneficial.
Havent merseyrail's units just had refurb at wabtec?

To be fair i suppose it will all be clearer next week when we know whats happening with MML GWML electrification and IEP and thameslink
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainsworth74 View Post
I forgot the Scarborough branch in my above post but thinking about it there are definitely problems at Seamer with unit length as the rear unit of the 6 car set is normal locked out of use from what I've heard. From looking at Google Earth it seems that the current platform is around 125m (a two unit 185 being around 150m) but there is plenty of disused platform so it should be fairly simple to extend it.
Well that should be considered, as you can 6 car this all way through then you got two services on core route at 6 car, thats lots of fun capcity for TPE to play with

Last edited by YorkshireBear; 21st October 2010 at 00:14. Reason: Double post prevention system
YorkshireBear is offline  
Old 21st October 2010, 00:22   #14
WatcherZero
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
Default

Are you thinking of Tyne and Wear Metro stock currently being refurbed by Wabtec in Doncaster?
507/508's were refurbed 2002-05 at Eastleigh (works now also used by Wabtec) with an expected life expiry date of 2014 (According to Merseyrail and Network Rail), now its impossible that new stock could be built or cascaded before then but they must surely be replaced as soon as possible afterwards .
WatcherZero is online now  
Old 21st October 2010, 00:28   #15
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,111
Default

i thought theyd just been done at doncaster, i know the tyne a wear are at moment. Just got confused....
YorkshireBear is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:14.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright © 2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2014