London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[northwichcat]

A post on wnxx from an informed source says LM have agreed to lease 319s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A post on wnxx from an informed source says LM have agreed to lease 319s.

Does it say what for? To replace 7x321 going to Scotland or something? Or to send Northern some 323s?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Does it say what for? To replace 7x321 going to Scotland or something?

No. He's just simply said LM have snapped up some 319s which has led to all shorts of follow on suggestions from TPE subleasing 350s, Northern subleasing 323s and an internal cascade to allow longer trains on some Euston services.

I think the end conclusion on the 7 x 321s going to Scotrail was that they would be Great Northern 321s which were off-lease from September, opposed to LM 321s which are off-lease from next April. Although, that doesn't mean LM won't be involved in a cascade to replace them.

 

[Rich McLean]

No. He's just simply said LM have snapped up some 319s which has led to all shorts of follow on suggestions from TPE subleasing 350s, Northern subleasing 323s and an internal cascade to allow longer trains on some Euston services.

I think the end conclusion on the 7 x 321s going to Scotrail was that they would be Great Northern 321s which were off-lease from September, opposed to LM 321s which are off-lease from next April. Although, that doesn't mean LM won't be involved in a cascade to replace them.

319's likely to be used on the Chase Line on the Wolves - Walsall via New Street Circuit, as well as New Street - International stoppers, releasing more 323s for cross city, and 350s for strengthening elsewhere on the network.

 

[A0wen]

The obvious question is why?

Introducing older units which the drivers aren't signed for doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely it would be more sensible to retain the 321s?

And in acceleration terms aren't they slower than the 323s or 350s, which would make them unsuitable for stoppers on the Coventry - Birmingham route which is already capacity constrained?

It would make more sense for them to get Northern to release the 323s, consolidate all of them in the West Mids and have more 319s in the North?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The obvious question is why?

Introducing older units which the drivers aren't signed for doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely it would be more sensible to retain the 321s?

They are very similar to 321s so I doubt training drivers across onto them will be costly.

Neil

 

[Wolfie]

The obvious question is why?

Introducing older units which the drivers aren't signed for doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely it would be more sensible to retain the 321s?

And in acceleration terms aren't they slower than the 323s or 350s, which would make them unsuitable for stoppers on the Coventry - Birmingham route which is already capacity constrained?

It would make more sense for them to get Northern to release the 323s, consolidate all of them in the West Mids and have more 319s in the North?

My bold

I am sure some folk have previoualy explained that with the current timetable speed and platform constraints rule this out. Otherwise I wouldn't bet against a paralel with the SouthEastern situation whereby LM lease 319s, sublease then to Northern and, in turn, Northern sublease 323s (or just possibly 321s) to LM....

 

[hwl]

No. He's just simply said LM have snapped up some 319s which has led to all shorts of follow on suggestions from TPE subleasing 350s, Northern subleasing 323s and an internal cascade to allow longer trains on some Euston services.

I think the end conclusion on the 7 x 321s going to Scotrail was that they would be Great Northern 321s which were off-lease from September, opposed to LM 321s which are off-lease from next April. Although, that doesn't mean LM won't be involved in a cascade to replace them.

What would GN use to replace the 321s from September though?
i.e. would they continue to lease them short term from another 2 years till enough 700s appear?

 

[A0wen]

My bold

I am sure some folk have previoualy explained that with the current timetable speed and platform constraints rule this out. Otherwise I wouldn't bet against a paralel with the SouthEastern situation whereby LM lease 319s, sublease then to Northern and, in turn, Northern sublease 323s (or just possibly 321s) to LM....

But aren't Northern's 321s 'funded' by WYPTE? Not sure they can just send them out.

It just seems really odd for LM to even consider the 319s when there are spare 321s around which it would be less disruptive for them to take.

I don't mind which they take, providing they don't put the blasted things on the Northampton - London turns. I absolutely hate it on the occasions when I've turned up at Euston late on a Friday evening and found a decrepit 321 for the Northampton service when there ought to be sufficient 350s to cover those.

 

[DJH1971]

This is news to me.

 

[swt_passenger]

It just seems really odd for LM to even consider the 319s when there are spare 321s around which it would be less disruptive for them to take.

Where are these spare 321s today? All we know so far is that some 321s are moving to Scotland, but they must be coming from a fleet that is currently in use somewhere.

I don't mind which they take, providing they don't put the blasted things on the Northampton - London turns. I absolutely hate it on the occasions when I've turned up at Euston late on a Friday evening and found a decrepit 321 for the Northampton service when there ought to be sufficient 350s to cover those.

There aren't enough 350s for all the planned LM services, that's surely why LM still have 7 x 321s in the first place. Perhaps they see it as a good idea to put the decrepit 321s out late on a Friday for some reason?

 

[455driver]

But aren't Northern's 321s 'funded' by WYPTE? Not sure they can just send them out.

They were sold to one of the leasing company a few years ago because 'government' decided that owning rolling stock was 'outside the normal sphere of responsibility'of a Local Authority or some such cowmanure!

 

[northwichcat]

But aren't Northern's 321s 'funded' by WYPTE? Not sure they can just send them out.

I think they have to remain in West Yorkshire until the end of the current franchise under a funding agreement even then if they leave they have to be replaced by units fitted with CCTV, the same CCTV condition applies to the 323s but the 323s can leave at any time if they are replaced with appropriate units (a 319 may not be appropriate on some lines.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They were sold to one of the leasing company a few years ago because 'government' decided that owning rolling stock was 'outside the normal sphere of responsibility'of a Local Authority or some such cowmanure!

Sold to Porterbrook along with the 144 centre cars on condition that Porterbrook sublease them back to Northern for use in the West Yorkshire area until the next franchise is awarded.

 

[Wolfie]

I think they have to remain in West Yorkshire until the end of the current franchise under a funding agreement even then if they leave they have to be replaced by units fitted with CCTV, the same CCTV condition applies to the 323s but the 323s can leave at any time if they are replaced with appropriate units (a 319 may not be appropriate on some lines.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sold to Porterbrook along with the 144 centre cars on condition that Porterbrook sublease them back to Northern for use in the West Yorkshire area until the next franchise is awarded.

Hum.. interesting question as to whether Northern's extension technically forms part of the same franchise...

 

[Emyr]

And in acceleration terms aren't they slower than the 323s or 350s, which would make them unsuitable for stoppers on the Coventry - Birmingham route which is already capacity constrained?

It would make more sense for them to get Northern to release the 323s, consolidate all of them in the West Mids and have more 319s in the North?

323s are used on the Manchester - Crewe stoppers where their acceleration is necessary to avoid holding up Virgin, ATW and Freight services. They are also used on Glossop/Hadfield services which I understand to be similarly constrained.

 

[northwichcat]

323s are used on the Manchester - Crewe stoppers where their acceleration is necessary to avoid holding up Virgin, ATW and Freight services. They are also used on Glossop/Hadfield services which I understand to be similarly constrained.

And Stoke stoppers.

Another issue with Glossop/Hadfield is some platforms are between 70m and 80m in length - so fine for a 323, not fine for a 319.

319s would probably be OK on the Alderley Edge services (which get DMU substitution in the event of a 323 shortage) - not that they need to be 4 carriages!

 

[Old Hill Bank]

A post on wnxx from an informed source says LM have agreed to lease 319s.

No surprise that LM have something in the pipeline as they are in negotiation with the DfT at the moment about the planned "Direct Award".

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hum.. interesting question as to whether Northern's extension technically forms part of the same franchise...

It doesn't, direct awards are new contracts.
All the side deals from the last franchise are now probably wrapped up in the current DfT/NT contract, although nothing has been announced.

 

[Peter Sarf]

No. He's just simply said LM have snapped up some 319s which has led to all shorts of follow on suggestions from TPE subleasing 350s, Northern subleasing 323s and an internal cascade to allow longer trains on some Euston services.

I think the end conclusion on the 7 x 321s going to Scotrail was that they would be Great Northern 321s which were off-lease from September, opposed to LM 321s which are off-lease from next April. Although, that doesn't mean LM won't be involved in a cascade to replace them.

Makes me think that perhaps LM will sub let these 319s to Great Northern so that the Great Northern 321s can go to Scotrail OR London Midland.

Great Northern swapping all its 321s for 319s would have the advantage that they don't have an extra type of unit to support. My main point is though that with Great Northern becoming part of the TSGN franchise some services will need dual voltage units for through working onto 3rd rail land and that makes perfect use of the dual voltage 319s.

London Midland would then end up with extra units of the same type as they already have if Scotrail does not get any 321s from Down South.

Just my two penyworth brain storm.

 

[158722]

Some rather complicated theories here... Perhaps its just a bit simpler.

Of the 7 LM 321s, last I knew was that 5 are employed on the mainline out of Euston and 1 on the Abbey flyer. If they get 319s, using 5 of these on Walsall-Wolves services to replace the 5 350s currently used would seem logical, with the 350s taking over the mainline 321 turns and thus Euston becomes a 350-only zone. Almost...

That leaves the Abbey flyer... Are there any more Birmingham-crewed turns which a 319 could be used on to displace a 350 for the Abbey turn? I know its a waste of a 350, but in terms of crew training and avoiding having a 319 or 323 out-stationing far from home, it seems a neater solution.

To get 7 or 8 319s vice the 7 321s would seem logical for now, perhaps another 4 added when the Chase valley goes electric in 2017?

Northern are apparently now getting 20 319s - previous posts have suggested there are 20 319/3s off lease/coming off lease with TSGN. Seems neat. 8 other 319s are coming off-lease (319013, a pair of 2s and 5 319/4s) - these for LM with their 321s off to ScotRail?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree with the above but why has it not already happened with the 321s going to Birmingham ?.

If anything the 319s could carry on being maintained by Selhurst which makes Birmingham even less likely. I guess for either 321s or 319s the depot of choice would be Northamton. Or Bletchley if Northampton could not cope anymore.

 

[northwichcat]

perhaps another 4 added when the Chase valley goes electric in 2017?

That's a good point.

Out of interest how many 323s at LM operate in single mode? Maybe with Manchester-Bolton-Preston ideally needing some 6 car EMU operation in the future any single 323s at LM could be replaced by larger 319s to allow more 3 car EMUs for the North West.

 

[158722]

I agree with the above but why has it not already happened with the 321s going to Birmingham ?.

Perhaps LM haven't had a say in this. With the DfT's new 'open market' approach to leasing, have Abellio snaffled the LM 321s, leaving LM with a gap to fill? Presumably LM haven't moved the 321s so far because they haven't needed to and thus avoided crew training costs in Birmingham. Now they don't get a choice, but perhaps going over to 319s now anticipates future fleet expansion in the Birmingham area.

Perhaps both LM and Northern will now have mixed 319 and 323 fleets, as opposed to the latter being concentrated at one operator as has often been suggested (including me!). Negates all the discussion about how 319s are unsuitable replacements for 323s on certain Northern routes.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Your right of course. These EMU juggling excercises are most likely symptoms of the rush to get EMUs for the smaller electrification schemes that are currently being completed. Not to mention the highly predictable growth.

We seem to be heading for a surplus of intercity diesel trains and a shortage of slower suburban diesel trains. Now we need more electric units. Goodness knows what will happen if the IEP has major teething problems. Its already becoming apparent that the guage clearance work for the 26m IEPs might be getting out of hand. Then there will be diesels under the wires !.

The above might belong in a few posts.

 

[northwichcat]

Perhaps both LM and Northern will now have mixed 319 and 323 fleets, as opposed to the latter being concentrated at one operator as has often been suggested (including me!). Negates all the discussion about how 319s are unsuitable replacements for 323s on certain Northern routes.

Arguments have been made about why 4 car EMUs can't take the place of some of the 323s as well due to 6 car formations being needed and existing infrastructure not being able to take 8 car.

So you could consider which of the following would be best value for money:
a) Let both operators have mixed fleets
b) Make some 319s 3 car
c) Fit corridor connectors and SDO to the 319s
d) Change the West Midlands infrastructure to take up to 8 car
e) Change the North West infrastructure to take up to 8 car
f) Let one operator have all the 323s and let the other order new 3 car EMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We seem to be heading for a surplus of intercity diesel trains and a shortage of slower suburban diesel trains.

One observation - when the 150s eventually get withdrawn they'll be no DMUs with 20m carriages unless we order new ones. That might sound like a good thing with rising passenger numbers but in instances where a 92/96m formation can't be used is a 3 car 70m train better than a 4 car 80m train?

 

[158722]

That's a good point.

Out of interest how many 323s at LM operate in single mode? Maybe with Manchester-Bolton-Preston ideally needing some 6 car EMU operation in the future any single 323s at LM could be replaced by larger 319s to allow more 3 car EMUs for the North West.

I see your line of thought.

The Crosscity line is a mix of 3 and 6 cars, even at peak times, but the only the New St-International shuttle is a stand alone single unit diagram. Would they want a mix of classes on the Cross City line where there are (I think) quite a few coupling/uncoupling of pairs during the day?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Arguments have been made about why 4 car EMUs can't take the place of some of the 323s as well due to 6 car formations being needed and existing infrastructure not being able to take 8 car.

So you could consider which of the following would be best value for money:
a) Let both operators have mixed fleets
b) Make some 319s 3 car
c) Fit corridor connectors and SDO to the 319s
d) Change the West Midlands infrastructure to take up to 8 car
e) Change the North West infrastructure to take up to 8 car
f) Let one operator have all the 323s and let the other order new 3 car EMUs.

Above neatly sums up what has been said on other threads. But I would add the following option (and then hide).

g) Let one operator have all the 323s and let the other have the 313s.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I agree with the above but why has it not already happened with the 321s going to Birmingham ?....

Driver training I'd imagine. Oh, and possibly something to do with Walsall-Birmingham units working Birmingham-Liverpool aswell....

....If anything the 319s could carry on being maintained by Selhurst which makes Birmingham even less likely....

319s haven't been allocated to Selhurst for a number of years, though they might still get some light maintenance there, an additional problem might be actually getting them there (LM drivers won't 'sign' it).

....I guess for either 321s or 319s the depot of choice would be Northamton. Or Bletchley if Northampton could not cope anymore.

It's a fair bet the 319s would be at home at Northampton.

 

[Peter Sarf]

One observation - when the 150s eventually get withdrawn they'll be no DMUs with 20m carriages unless we order new ones. That might sound like a good thing with rising passenger numbers but in instances where a 92/96m formation can't be used is a 3 car 70m train better than a 4 car 80m train?

Given that the 319s doors are not even at the ends of the coaches the length of a 4-car 319 might be nearer to only 75m from front cab to last passenger door ?.

 

[Class377/5]

319's likely to be used on the Chase Line on the Wolves - Walsall via New Street Circuit, as well as New Street - International stoppers, releasing more 323s for cross city, and 350s for strengthening elsewhere on the network.

Not a chance.

They are very similar to 321s so I doubt training drivers across onto them will be costly.

Neil

Why they were picked.

What would GN use to replace the 321s from September though?
i.e. would they continue to lease them short term from another 2 years till enough 700s appear?

321s will be replaced by class 700s. Not giving a date.

Makes me think that perhaps LM will sub let these 319s to Great Northern so that the Great Northern 321s can go to Scotrail OR London Midland.

Great Northern swapping all its 321s for 319s would have the advantage that they don't have an extra type of unit to support. My main point is though that with Great Northern becoming part of the TSGN franchise some services will need dual voltage units for through working onto 3rd rail land and that makes perfect use of the dual voltage 319s.

London Midland would then end up with extra units of the same type as they already have if Scotrail does not get any 321s from Down South.

Just my two penyworth brain storm.

No 319s to GN. All GN services through to 3rd rail land will only be run by Thameslink class 700s.

I agree with the above but why has it not already happened with the 321s going to Birmingham ?.

If anything the 319s could carry on being maintained by Selhurst which makes Birmingham even less likely. I guess for either 321s or 319s the depot of choice would be Northamton. Or Bletchley if Northampton could not cope anymore.

319s are maintained by Bedford Cauldwell and Hornsey depots only.