London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[61653 HTAFC]

Always thought it wud be nice to have some over here West Yorkshire - in exchange of course for manchester getting a few of our 333s

You mean the 323s? An additional batch of 14 units was originally planned for the Airedale/Wharfdale but privatisation put a stop to that. However it did mean that 16 333s were ordered instead and that it was possible to extend the fleet to 4-car units. Which can only be seen as an improvement, in the end.

Albeit with the problem of 4-car units on a system where 6-car is the realistic maximum, and we lost West Yorkshire's last train building factory...

 

[Kettledrum]

Bromsgrove station is running about 3 months late because of problems with ground contamination and a footbridge redesign, and will open in March 2016.
The electrification project still seems on however, for 2017 completion.
http://www.bromsgroveadvertiser.co....ay_station_delayed_after_construction_issues/

Hmmm - I do wonder whether some of the problems could have been foreseen For example, the article says the footbridge was:

"approved in principle in September 2014, but the new safety standard didn't come into UK law until March 2015"

Didn't the designers know about the new safety standard in advance?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Does "Modern Railways" have a reliable source for the information? Is "Modern Railways" generally a reliable source of information for stories such as this? Genuine questions by the way; I don't know the answer to either and nor is it a publication I read. I just wondered whether we are speculating upon somebody else's speculation.

Modern Railways is generally the go-to guide for industry news, very rarely wrong, though things do change between the magazine going to print and the magazine hitting door mats and shop shelves.

I'd start with Roger Ford's Informed Sources e-preview for a flavour of what the magazine is about, and the level of interaction Roger and others enjoy.

http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2015.07.20.03.50.archive.txt

 

[MK Tom]

I think you just want to be objectionable.

Liverpool to Manchester Piccadilly is 45 minutes.

Most Milton Keynes to Euston passengers would use Virgin. Hemel Hempstead and Watford are the only large settlements between the two, Hemel Hempstead to Euston is around 30 minutes.

The larger part of MKC-EUS passengers use LM in my experience. Many do use VT but the inability to travel in the weekday peaks and the earlier last train result in many choosing LM for flexibility.

Not sure why people are quoting a 60 minute journey time for MKC-EUS when it can be done in 32 minutes on the xx:14 from MKC and similar times up to 45 minutes or so on two or three other LM services every hour. Only the xx:47 takes as long as that.

 

[childwallblues]

I travelled on the 1034 (321414 + 321412) out of Euston yesterday. Not cleaned as train was full of discarded Metro newspapers and empty cans/plastic bottles/empty food wrappers. Absolutely disgusting state.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The larger part of MKC-EUS passengers use LM in my experience. Many do use VT but the inability to travel in the weekday peaks and the earlier last train result in many choosing LM for flexibility.

In commuter terms a very large number use the early VTs from around 0600-0715. I don't know if it's most, but it wouldn't surprise me. The first evening VT north is not particularly quiet.

Not sure why people are quoting a 60 minute journey time for MKC-EUS when it can be done in 32 minutes on the xx:14 from MKC and similar times up to 45 minutes or so on two or three other LM services every hour. Only the xx:47 takes as long as that.

The key to a civilised journey is often the slower trains; certainly avoid the Crewe[1] at all costs as it's often 4-car. But in principle you're right

[1] If having it as 4, it should in my view be u/s at MKC to save the seats for those who have no other service, but LM preferred to shout about journey time to wave their proverbial at VT.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another positive thought on 319s, were that to happen (though I think it unlikely)...presumably old rolling stock wouldn't be on a mileage limited contract, so LM would be able to increase far more trains to 8 or 12-car, particularly perhaps being able to consider 8-car running all day Saturday and Sunday?

 

[158722]

Does "Modern Railways" have a reliable source for the information? Is "Modern Railways" generally a reliable source of information for stories such as this? Genuine questions by the way; I don't know the answer to either and nor is it a publication I read. I just wondered whether we are speculating upon somebody else's speculation.

Modern Railways is without a doubt, the most authoritative railway title, with respected writers such as Roger Ford and Tony Miles. That said, whilst no-one is ever 100% right all the time, but MR is about as reliable as it gets.

 

[northwichcat]

The larger part of MKC-EUS passengers use LM in my experience. Many do use VT but the inability to travel in the weekday peaks and the earlier last train result in many choosing LM for flexibility.

Ah so they want to use the slower service because it's cheaper, yet still want high quality rolling stock.

 

[AM9]

Ah so they want to use the slower service because it's cheaper, yet still want high quality rolling stock.

This is true for all London 'inter-city'/outer suburban commuter stations, e.g. Bedford, Peterborough and MK. Just wait and see how the Reading lot handle the dilemma of Crossrail vs GWML. It may result in u/s being enforced there. Slightly OT I know.

 

[northwichcat]

I didn't read anything in MR about LM losing any 350s. Or is this just the 323s?

It seems Modern Railways has received information which isn't the complete story. They don't appear to have said a deal has been agreed for Northern to receive replacement units and obviously suitable replacement units will be required.

A while back an unconfirmed story about the 350/4s transferring to Northern for Regional Express services emerged. However, another then emerged about all the 100mph capable Porterbrook 350s going to Northern and the 350/4s joining the other 110mph capable 350s at LM (which belong to Angel.)

So the question has been asked if there's any relation between the two.

 

[D365]

This is true for all London 'inter-city'/outer suburban commuter stations, e.g. Bedford, Peterborough and MK. Just wait and see how the Reading lot handle the dilemma of Crossrail vs GWML. It may result in u/s being enforced there. Slightly OT I know.

Well yeah, even if prices were not inflated by EC, it would be counter-productive for me to travel to Peterborough and from there to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is true for all London 'inter-city'/outer suburban commuter stations, e.g. Bedford, Peterborough and MK. Just wait and see how the Reading lot handle the dilemma of Crossrail vs GWML. It may result in u/s being enforced there. Slightly OT I know.

I think u/s would make sense, but it would need to be in combination with an at least half hourly 12-car fast commuter service perhaps calling at Slough only, in the manner of MKC. And I'm not sure there's room, unless Crossrail caused Heathrow Express to be abandoned maybe.

A stopping service like Crossrail won't really be an acceptable substitute.

 

[Tetchytyke]

1713 is one of the busiest trains according to London Midland seat finder on their website!

Sorry, I meant the 1712 Tring, which always goes at 1713...

Yeah, the 1713 Birmingham is busy, but it's mostly shown as "extra busy" because it is first stop Milton Keynes Central so if you're standing you'll be standing all the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That sounds almost like the 0714 off Bletchley, which has been an 0712, 0713 and 0715 as well over the past few years. I think the change to 0714/0715 was to make it a "legal" connection from the Bedford train, but I don't know what explains the constant bounce back and forth plus or minus a minute.

 

[MK Tom]

Ah so they want to use the slower service because it's cheaper, yet still want high quality rolling stock.

No, because of flexibility. VT you can't use at all in the peaks to MKC, it's not more expensive, it's not allowed. The services become u/s. And the earlier finish is the other reason.

If you're getting an off peak day travelcard VT is actually about 50p cheaper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, because of flexibility. VT you can't use at all in the peaks to MKC, it's not more expensive, it's not allowed. The services become u/s. And the earlier finish is the other reason.

It depends what you mean by "the peaks". Southbound there are 5 (I think) VTs between 0600 and 0715. Those are I believe used by the vast majority of MKC commuters, quite simply because to comfortably reach parts of London away from Euston where much of the commuter employment is (the City and Canary Wharf) by 9am the later LMs are just too late.

There are few suitable services northbound, however, which is understandable as VT want the long distance passengers to get the seats (southbound they already have them).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If Northern Rail were to lose the Class 323 3-car units and see these replaced with Class 319 4-car units, how has the extra duty experience of having an extra coach for the train staff to cover for fares collection been felt by members of the train staff when such Class 319 units have been introduced in the Northern Rail franchise.?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Northern Rail were to lose the Class 323 3-car units and see these replaced with Class 319 4-car units, how has the extra duty experience of having an extra coach for the train staff to cover for fares collection been felt by members of the train staff when such Class 319 units have been introduced in the Northern Rail franchise.?

3 x 23m = 69m
4 x 20m = 80m

An extra eleven metres of train. I don't really think that is significant.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Could someone please explain what u/s means? I'm guessing pick-up/set-down only?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could someone please explain what u/s means? I'm guessing pick-up/set-down only?

Yes, sorry; these are indicated by "u" and "s" against the time in the timetable.

 

[D365]

3 x 23m = 69m [323]
4 x 20m = 80m [319/350]

An extra eleven metres of train. I don't really think that is significant.

I queried earlier whether the increase in unit length should cause problems with 319s or 350s replacing doubled-up 323s around either Birmingham or Manchester. However, I have been informed that use of 2x323 on the Northern network is limited; aside from the acceleration issue, I conclude it will be easier for Northern to give up their 17 Class 323s, if they are indeed to be transferred to Birmingham.

In compensation it is speculated that the Class 350/2s will be transferred to Northern, with the 350/4s moving to LM and additional 319s to make up the remainder.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In compensation it is speculated that the Class 350/2s will be transferred to Northern, with the 350/4s moving to LM and additional 319s to make up the remainder.

While I dislike 350/2s due to the seating[1], and thus wouldn't mind this, particularly if the 319s are the types with 2+2 seating and a good number of well-spaced airline seats (the ex Cityflyer or Brighton Express sets), where is it speculated? I've only heard it on here, not from any concrete source.

[1] Which will need replacing anyway if they are to meet the Northern Regional and/or TPE spec.

 

[northwichcat]

I queried earlier whether the increase in unit length should cause problems with 319s or 350s replacing doubled-up 323s around either Birmingham or Manchester. However, I have been informed that use of 2x323 on the Northern network is limited; aside from the acceleration issue, I conclude it will be easier for Northern to give up their 17 Class 323s, if they are indeed to be transferred to Birmingham.

There is an issue with some Glossop line platforms being just over 70m in length. Although, lengthening a platform to take 4 x 20m shouldn't be too difficult.

2 x 323s would have been more ideal for the Bolton corridor post-electrification given existing infrastructure constraints at Salford Crescent. (2 x 323s being very slightly shorter than 2 x 185s which can be taken at Salford Crescent) but it seems Network Rail are going to have to remodel Salford Crescent again.

 

[MK Tom]

Am I right in thinking only a small number of 319s have the Connex 2+2 seating?

 

[158722]

It seems Modern Railways has received information which isn't the complete story. They don't appear to have said a deal has been agreed for Northern to receive replacement units and obviously suitable replacement units will be required.

A while back an unconfirmed story about the 350/4s transferring to Northern for Regional Express services emerged. However, another then emerged about all the 100mph capable Porterbrook 350s going to Northern and the 350/4s joining the other 110mph capable 350s at LM (which belong to Angel.)

So the question has been asked if there's any relation between the two.

Indeed, spot on review of thread so far! MR seem have got wind of only one part of the potential jigsaw - we are discussing how the other parts of this could all come together.

I may have missed this somewhere, but have any routes or service patterns been mentioned or defined for these Northern Regional Express services? I presume the base ones are the Manchester Airport-Blackpools currently being operated by Northern 156s. Are the Barrow and Windermere services going to be moved from TPE to NOR as well?

 

[D365]

There is an issue with some Glossop line platforms being just over 70m in length. Although, lengthening a platform to take 4 x 20m shouldn't be too difficult.

2 x 323s would have been more ideal for the Bolton corridor post-electrification given existing infrastructure constraints at Salford Crescent. (2 x 323s being very slightly shorter than 2 x 185s which can be taken at Salford Crescent) but it seems Network Rail are going to have to remodel Salford Crescent again.

Either that, or they have to lengthen platforms on the Birmingham lines to 160m instead of 138m...

Am I right in thinking only a small number of 319s have the Connex 2+2 seating?

The seven Class 319/2s, which were converted in the late '90s.

 

[sprinterguy]

I thought the Birmingham diagrams were 100mph ones - the 110s being the Weedon ones for the TV.

One Birmingham train an hour runs on the fast lines south of Ledburn Junction at 110mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Am I right in thinking only a small number of 319s have the Connex 2+2 seating?

Yes, and those are the nicest, but the ex Thameslink Cityflyer ones have large areas of 2+2 made from 3+2 with the third seat removed and some rows of airline seating rather than all facing, which is better spaced than the 350/2s. Those would be OK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I may have missed this somewhere, but have any routes or service patterns been mentioned or defined for these Northern Regional Express services? I presume the base ones are the Manchester Airport-Blackpools currently being operated by Northern 156s. Are the Barrow and Windermere services going to be moved from TPE to NOR as well?

I believe that's the plan. If they go for bi-mode Stadler FLIRTs they would be good for Barrow.

 

[Philip C]

On the specific issue of whether 323s are essential to the interworking of services between Piccadilly and Stoke I make the following comments:

1. I've always been surprised that door release remains with the guard. Apart from anything else this eats up paths that cost a fortune to supply. What's the point of spending a fortune to resignal/upgrade the line only for capacity to be limited by the failure to allow drivers to do this task? In my experience (my parents lived in Poynton for many years) standing by doors awaiting release, whilst guards attend to ticketing issues, is very common.

2. With two locals per hour at least one stop (Adlington) is expected to be cut from the through service to Stoke.

3. With four tracks between Slade Lane Junction and Adswood (assuming the western pair north of Slade Lane will basically be for Airport-Oxford Road and beyond services) there is scope for Macclesfield line locals to run slow line, call at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, be overtaken and re-enter the fray of the main line immediately behind a fast train thus maximising the time available to get to Stoke. Similar arrangements could apply northbound. At present the standard timing is for the locals to leave Stockport 12 minutes behind the preceding up fast.

I conclude that, with attention to some or all of these points, trains with lesser performance ought to be practicable for service on this line.

Having said all this, the sense that the North is last at the eating bowl, and that what little it has is fair game for everybody else, is growing. Perhaps greater clarity of, and commitment to, a bright new future wouldn't go amiss?

 

[northwichcat]

2. With two locals per hour at least one stop (Adlington) is expected to be cut from the through service to Stoke.

Adlington and Prestbury are set to be cut from the off-peak hourly Stoke services following the introduction of an additional hourly Macclesfield service. However, the peak services will continue to be half-hourly all-stops Manchester to Stoke services so that doesn't really change anything.