London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[DarloRich]

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.

Yes - We on the Vale have had an ongoing campaign to get certain trains re timetabled to make "legal" connections north and south. I speak as an individual passenger and we have had some success via the users group and personal letters.

The signal for the 07:14 is almost always cleared for departure before the off. I am sure you can speculate on the reasons for delay. I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[Philip C]

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.

If my options 1-3 don't crack the problem, then looping the local at Macclesfield whilst a down fast passes, or better calls, should do the job. Playing the game that way with the current 1717 slow and 1735 fast ex. Piccadilly would seem to have few downsides and would provide a quicker service to Congleton and a possible service to Kidsgrove.

My point is that there are some quite straight-forward strategies for coping with less expeditious units on the Macclesfield line. However I really don't see why the 323s should be snatched from the North, without even a 'by-your-leave'. Now if the plan is to provide 'better' units, then that would be a different matter.............

 

[Old Hill Bank]

If MR have this right it's no surprise. The initial proposal for the LM franchice was to bring all of the 323s down to the West Midlands. What do we do on here, we assume that is the plan then go off on loads of other tangents about 350s going north, 319s to WCML etc. 323s to the West Midlands makes so much sense to do Bromgrove, Chase Line and for Cross City capacity. Let's see what happens.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

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

On a short service such as the Manchester Airport all stops to Manchester Piccadilly shuttle service, that loads quite well at all times, I tend not to agree with you, as the distances between stops is not great, with all carriages loading and unloading.

 

[Emblematic]

On a short service such as the Manchester Airport all stops to Manchester Piccadilly shuttle service, that loads quite well at all times, I tend not to agree with you, as the distances between stops is not great, with all carriages loading and unloading.

Same number of pax/tickets to check though. If the loadings are high, having fewer standees and more room to pass would more than compensate for the extra gangway and few extra metres to cover.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

But with Trans Pennine electrification postponed, are the 350/4s likely to become available for redeployment before the mid 2020s ?? Neither 319s or 350/2s would be considered acceptable for the Manchester Airport - Scotland services. And apart from some wishful thinking, I have seen no firm proposals for new build "micro-390s", etc., on these services.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

But with Trans Pennine electrification postponed, are the 350/4s likely to become available for redeployment before the mid 2020s ?? Neither 319s or 350/2s would be considered acceptable for the Manchester Airport - Scotland services. And apart from some wishful thinking, I have seen no firm proposals for new build "micro-390s", etc., on these services.

Where would the 350/4s most likely go? Another TPE route or to another TOC (probably LM or SWT)?

 

[D365]

But with Trans Pennine electrification postponed, are the 350/4s likely to become available for redeployment before the mid 2020s ?? Neither 319s or 350/2s would be considered acceptable for the Manchester Airport - Scotland services. And apart from some wishful thinking, I have seen no firm proposals for new build "micro-390s", etc., on these services.

There are more reasons to the suspension of the TransPennine electrification, the so-called Northern Powerhouse proposals have required a change in thinking. I'm expecting TransPennine works to be resumed first.

Would it be a problem to convert, say, 10-12 350/2s to an equivalent interior?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where would the 350/4s most likely go? Another TPE route or to another TOC (probably LM or SWT)?

As part of the speculative deal I explained that they would go to LM, where they are presently sub-leased from. This provides them with more 110mph-enabled EMUs.

 

[DarloRich]

If MR have this right it's no surprise. The initial proposal for the LM franchice was to bring all of the 323s down to the West Midlands. What do we do on here, we assume that is the plan then go off on loads of other tangents about 350s going north, 319s to WCML etc. 323s to the West Midlands makes so much sense to do Bromgrove, Chase Line and for Cross City capacity. Let's see what happens.

well there is a 319 sat in Bletchley carriage sidings undergoing LM crew familiarisation.................

I am all for concentrating one type of unit on one TOC so all the 323's with LM OR Norther makes sense to me

 

[D365]

What's the closest stock in terms of crew signing/familiarity to 319s of LM's existing stock?

Got to be the 321s that are most similar, seeing as both classes are a late-80s Mk3 derivative design. How extensive is the conversion course?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

well there is a 319 sat in Bletchley carriage sidings undergoing LM crew familiarisation.................

I am all for concentrating one type of unit on one TOC so all the 323's with LM OR Norther makes sense to me

IMO London Midland could do with the additional 323s, the 350s aren't ideal for Birmingham r.e. platform lengths and running units in multiple. Hopefully the 350 swap that we have proposed will make sense in the real world.

 

[A0wen]

Got to be the 321s that are most similar, seeing as both classes are a late-80s Mk3 derivative design. How extensive is the conversion course?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


IMO London Midland could do with the additional 323s, the 350s aren't ideal for Birmingham r.e. platform lengths and running units in multiple. Hopefully the 350 swap that we have proposed will make sense in the real world.

Yes, it makes sense to consolidate the 323s with LM for West Mids services, particularly given platform lengths.

BUT LM for Birmingham - Liverpool, London - Northampton and London - Birmingham should be operating exclusively 350s.

319s / 321s should be confined to the Tring stoppers only.

 

[northwichcat]

If MR have this right it's no surprise. The initial proposal for the LM franchice was to bring all of the 323s down to the West Midlands.

Initial proposal also had brand new EMUs and DMUs being ordered for Northern, as well as brand new DMUs for TPE and FGW. I don't know why people in the West Midlands area were always so hopeful of still getting the Northern 323s when the rest of the proposal isn't still going ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But with Trans Pennine electrification postponed, are the 350/4s likely to become available for redeployment before the mid 2020s ??

The 350/4s won't stretch far enough until the mid-2020s. TPE are going to have to start using something else on Scottish services either as well as 350s or instead of 350s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of all these swaps being discussed, I'd say the only justifiable complaint from passengers will be those using the Tring and MKC services, who would see a downgrade from an AC 350 to non-AC 319 on most services, although this could be tempered somewhat with the provision of more 12-car sets vice 8-car.

If 319s were obtained using conventional leasing rather than the kind of mileage-limited deal the 350s are on, we could have 8-car all day Saturday and Sunday, which I think people would really appreciate.

This doesn't, on balance, seem all that bad an idea.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Same number of pax/tickets to check though. If the loadings are high, having fewer standees and more room to pass would more than compensate for the extra gangway and few extra metres to cover.

Could this extra meterage x 2 on each return trip be another matter that the union would pick up, nonetheless?

 

[DarloRich]

Looking at the current LM timetable out of Euston, it looks perfectly logical to cover both the Tring and MKC services using 319s (presumably these are currently 350/2s plus a couple of peak extra 321s). Typical journey times of less than 45 mins and around an hour respectively - compatible with the majority of current journeys on Thameslink 319s, I'd have thought.

Off-peak, it looks like 7 diagrams can cover those services, with an extra 3 or 4 diagrams at peak times. 7x 12car formations, 3x 8-car plus a single for the St Albans branch could be covered by a fleet of 30 units, for example.

Out of all these swaps being discussed, I'd say the only justifiable complaint from passengers will be those using the Tring and MKC services, who would see a downgrade from an AC 350 to non-AC 319 on most services, although this could be tempered somewhat with the provision of more 12-car sets vice 8-car.

If 319s were obtained using conventional leasing rather than the kind of mileage-limited deal the 350s are on, we could have 8-car all day Saturday and Sunday, which I think people would really appreciate.

This doesn't, on balance, seem all that bad an idea.

no, it is a silly idea! Your "sensible" idea is to remove modern stock from LM and replace them on a very important, growing and and cash generating commuter flow with older stock.

As for the weekends i think most people would see the replacement of 4 cars of 2000's built stock ( with all the amenities that go with them) with 8 cars of 1980's built stock as a backwards move somehow! Even if you got a seat, which by the way I never have a problem getting over the weekend.


You don't live in the real world! In any event LM are only getting a handful of 319's to cover the loss of the 321's

Yes, it makes sense to consolidate the 323s with LM for West Mids services, particularly given platform lengths.

BUT LM for Birmingham - Liverpool, London - Northampton and London - Birmingham should be operating exclusively 350s.

319s / 321s should be confined to the Tring stoppers only.

exactly: 350's for longer distance and MK/Northampton commuters and 319's on the shorter distance work.

TBH i would like LM to take all the 350's and allow TPE/Northern to procure a train suitable for their needs

 

[northwichcat]

cash generating commuter flow

All routes generate cash unless they have 0 passengers. If you mean profitable there's no breakdown of profitable routes (except for the ATW franchise.) We can make educated guesses but overall the LM franchise is loss making.

i think most people would see the replacement of 4 cars of 2000's built stock ( with all the amenities that go with them) with 8 cars of 1980's built stock

Porterbrook claim the 319s could have new fronts with corridor connections, new seats, air conditioning etc. http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/319 Brochure.pdf

However, the question is how much will it cost and will anyone want to pay the increased leasing costs that come with it.

In any event LM are only getting a handful of 319's to cover the loss of the 321's

Like I've already said there's a missing piece to the jigsaw and we don't know what that missing piece is. We can't say with any certainty LM won't get more 319s and we can't say with any certainty that Northern will get 350s.

i would like LM to take all the 350's and allow TPE/Northern to procure a train suitable for their needs

Question is can LM justify taking on 27 extra trains, especially if they aren't pushing for 7 trains to replace their 7 x 321s?

 

[DarloRich]

All routes generate cash unless they have 0 passengers. If you mean profitable there's no breakdown of profitable routes (except for the ATW franchise.) We can make educated guesses but overall the LM franchise is loss making.

If you think MK - Euston is making a loss something is wrong with your calculator Agreed there is no public domain documentation available on route profitability

Porterbrook claim the 319s could have new fronts with corridor connections, new seats, air conditioning etc. http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/319 Brochure.pdf

However, the question is how much will it cost and will anyone want to pay the increased leasing costs that come with it.

What do you think will happen? Do you think someone will pay extra when the train can go in service now?

Like I've already said there's a missing piece to the jigsaw and we don't know what that missing piece is. We can't say with any certainty LM won't get more 319s and we can't say with any certainty that Northern will get 350s.

Question is can LM justify taking on 27 extra trains, especially if they aren't pushing for 7 trains to replace their 7 x 321s?

They could easily use them although at present they wouldn't all be needed now. Their passenger figures are only going to grow. The next spots for large growth will be Northampton and Rugby for commuters into London while MK continues to grow at a large rate. Coupled with that is the increase in commuting into MK as more and more business moves to the area.

 

[northwichcat]

If you think MK - Euston is making a loss something is wrong with your calculator Agreed there is no public domain documentation available on route profitability

All I said is we don't know. Virgin will take a large share of the revenue for 'Any Permitted' tickets, while if off-peak or counter peak services are strengthened when they don't need to be that'll affect the profitability of the LM services overall.

The only thing we do know is overall the LM franchise is loss making.

What do you think will happen? Do you think someone will pay extra when the train can go in service now?

I think Porterbrook came up with the proposals because the last Labour government were promising a full refurbishment of the 319s before going to newly electrified routes. On top of that Porterbrook probably realised they still would have a number of 319s off-lease even after the proposal to put them on newly electrified routes in the North West and Thames Valley, so needed to try and sell the units.

 

[158722]

no, it is a silly idea! Your "sensible" idea is to remove modern stock from LM and replace them on a very important, growing and and cash generating commuter flow with older stock.

You don't live in the real world! In any event LM are only getting a handful of 319's to cover the loss of the 321's

Whatever. This is a discussion group within which speculation (at various levels of credibility) forms a huge percentage of postings.

So, from your comfortable position up there in the real world, perhaps you could outline a view as to the impact or options for the future, given the news (from a very credible source) that Northern may loose its 17x 323s. The only other confirmed facts which may affect many of the options being discussed is the replacement of the 7x 321 with 4x 319s at LM.

 

[FordFocus]

The 323 thing to Birmingham always happens every year. This time I've seen a wacky plan on here where some LM 350s for Northern adding on a lot of training days for traincrew and fitters. This is despite LM having a purpose built depot for 350s with regular 8/12 car workings during peak hours.

If DaFT have their hearts set on 323s all going to Birmingham (where will an additional 17 unit stable??) then the only logical replacement for Northern is more 319s. Allerton been the home depot for them with expensive Longsight as an outbase. 319s haven't had the best of starts up north, many of them failing in spectacular fashion and blocking up the service for a few hours.

Platforms can be lengthened, it's not exactly rocket science. A lot of South Manchester stations can accommodate 6 cars and I've never seen any rostered working of double units with the exception of Old Trafford specials. 319s should not be converted to 3 car or regeared for 75mph, that's a very backward step. Timetables will have to be amended for the slower acceleration unless a new traction package was introduced.

319s can have an air con mod, it's just who will fund it and when can it be done. So that issue is partly solved.

I think the best of both worlds is for Northern to lose 4 or 5 Class 323 units, LM Birmingham to lengthen whatever they need to do and Northern gain with more 319s. Piccadilly would have to be trained and use them on Crewe and Alderley Edge away from the more tightly timed Hadfield and Stoke lines.

With the TPE 170 fiasco, the ROSCO will simply go with the better offer they receive with zero regards to what the rolling stock the DfT want and where. Was this what John Major planned for when he created this expensive mess?

 

[DarloRich]

Whatever. This is a discussion group within which speculation (at various levels of credibility) forms a huge percentage of postings.

So, from your comfortable position up there in the real world, perhaps you could outline a view as to the impact or options for the future, given the news (from a very credible source) that Northern may loose its 17x 323s. The only other confirmed facts which may affect many of the options being discussed is the replacement of the 7x 321 with 4x 319s at LM.

I don't know. I am simply saying your idea isn't the most sensible one. Swapping 350's for 319's wouldn't go down well with Euston line commuters and would be seen as a large backward step. Do we need to breakout the season ticket price comparison post again?

Just send Northern as many 319's as are spare. Would that do?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Yes, it makes sense to consolidate the 323s with LM for West Mids services, particularly given platform lengths.

BUT LM for Birmingham - Liverpool, London - Northampton and London - Birmingham should be operating exclusively 350s.

319s / 321s should be confined to the Tring stoppers only.

Would also make the proposed split of LM into the West Midland local and West Coast Connect franchises easier too if the fleets are separate.

 

[northwichcat]

then the only logical replacement for Northern is more 319s.

...

319s should not be converted to 3 car

...

Timetables will have to be amended for the slower acceleration unless a new traction package was introduced.

Porterbrook's 319 brochure indicates to improve acceleration the units will have to be reduced to 3 car and completely rewired. As the 319s have 20m carriages, a 3 car 319 will be around 25% shorter than a 3 car 323.

Northern can't just timetable their services at any time they want. They are heavily restricted by Virgin and that's exactly why slower accelerating trains on Stoke services could be an issue.

With the TPE 170 fiasco, the ROSCO will simply go with the better offer they receive with zero regards to what the rolling stock the DfT want and where. Was this what John Major planned for when he created this expensive mess?

The 170 fiasco was the biggest one because DfT kept bleating on about no new DMUs being required when anyone with a realistic view on electrification plans knew that was rubbish.

Scotrail secured some 321s which were still required in England, yet that will cause much smaller issues due to EMUs being more plentiful in supply.

If we want to speculate on ideas, Southeastern were supposed to be taking on third rail only 377s and releasing dual-powered 375s for Corby services. Now Corby electrification has been delayed does that potentially leave something that could replace the 323s and run Regional Express routes without requiring 350s to leave LM?

 

[Emblematic]

Could this extra meterage x 2 on each return trip be another matter that the union would pick up, nonetheless?

I'm sure it would be regarded as a capitalist conspiracy to cause more work and threaten the hard-fought for conditions of the poor downtrodden union members, yes. Just as shortening a four-car set to three would be the profiteering fat-cats of the privatised rail industry putting lives of staff and passengers at risk of dangerous overcrowding, putting profits before safety... :roll:

 

[swt_passenger]

If we want to speculate on ideas, Southeastern were supposed to be taking on third rail only 377s and releasing dual-powered 375s for Corby services.

The former being published in a formal DfT franchise specification, and AFAICT the latter being just Modern Railways mag speculation.

You cannot necessarily give every proposition the same degree of credibility.

 

[Camden]

The 375/377 is 100mph, so I don't see how this could operate Corby services.

 

[northwichcat]

The 375/377 is 100mph, so I don't see how this could operate Corby services.

You could have said the same when it was proposed 100mph 185s would replace Voyagers on Manchester-Scotland services.

 

[Camden]

I don't think it is comparable, from a technical perspective. I don't see how it could physically work, especially if Corby has two trains each hour as it is intended.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think it is comparable, from a technical perspective. I don't see how it could physically work, especially if Corby has two trains each hour as it is intended.

Network Rail's delivery plan said the following

For Corby 2017 the train service should be limited to 2 services per hour, 12-car EMU Class 377/387 or equivalent. Full unrestricted operation will be available in December 2019.

I think a 375 is equivalent to a 377. It was a toss up between Corby and Thames Valley for who got the 387s.

 

[WatcherZero]

Reading the actual magazine article rather than just email alert it doesn't seem to be a done deal that they are going to LM but rather an initiative by the ROSCO to make them unavailable to Northern Bidders to try and get them to LM to reduce the supply chain and qualified maintenance staff required by concentrating them at one operator.