London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[D365]

Do Northern operate many services using 2x323? IIRC, one of the issues for London Midland and Northern has been that a 2x350 (or 2x319) formation is too long for platforms on their lines which are predominantly Class 323-operated.

If Heathrow is to sell their Class 360/2 (and 332) fleet, could the few 5-car units make up somewhat for Northern?

 

[Haydn1971]

What's the seat count on a 323 vs 319 ?

 

[sprinterguy]

Do Northern operate many services using 2x323?

None in regular timetabled service that I know of, just occasional football specials for Old Trafford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's the seat count on a 323 vs 319 ?

With the 319s it varies, but the highest capacity units, the remaining 319/0s, seat 319, while a typical 323 seats 284 (plus five tip-up seats). The 319/3s that are entering service with Northern seat 297.

 

[The Planner]

Timetables can always be amended. ..

As long as it doesnt move the electric red and silver ones along there then yes they can.....

 

[Class 170101]

Might be a case of extra services over this route but some of the smaller stations retaining same number of services as today so services can skip stops to maintain 323 paths.

 

[evergreenadam]

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.

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

 

[BantamMenace]

Perfect opportunity for the 333s to go west to replace the 323s and the AireWharfe lines upgraded to 5 or 6 car operation. Granted this would probably take 2 or 3 years if you started tomorrow.

Its a win win albeit someone needs to spend some coin to achieve it.

 

[Rich McLean]

Perfect opportunity for the 333s to go west to replace the 323s and the AireWharfe lines upgraded to 5 or 6 car operation. Granted this would probably take 2 or 3 years if you started tomorrow.

Its a win win albeit someone needs to spend some coin to achieve it.

SYPTE will not like that

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perfect opportunity for the 333s to go west to replace the 323s and the AireWharfe lines upgraded to 5 or 6 car operation. Granted this would probably take 2 or 3 years if you started tomorrow.

Its a win win albeit someone needs to spend some coin to achieve it.

SYPTE will not like that

The situation in Yorkshire (with SYPTE funding 333s in order to keep 4-car 321/322s on Doncaster services) was only ever going to end in tears eventually. Hate to say it, but it might take something like this to force central government to look at funding genuine improvement for rail services in Yorkshire.

 

[A0wen]

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.

I thought the 323s were also needed for the Manchester-Stoke services - again I'm not sure 319s will be able to keep the timings and that would cause probs with VWC and XC services.

On the 319s to LM - I thought that was only to replace the 321s - I can't see LM agreeing to lose 350s to be replaced with 319s - they won't be able to work Rugby-Birmingham as they're not quick enough and same would apply to TV stoppers and they'll struggle to keep time on Northampton / MKC - London services as well.

And the nice new maintenance facility at Northampton was built specifically to look after the 350s.....

 

[northwichcat]

I thought the 323s were also needed for the Manchester-Stoke services - again I'm not sure 319s will be able to keep the timings and that would cause probs with VWC and XC services.

On the 319s to LM - I thought that was only to replace the 321s - I can't see LM agreeing to lose 350s to be replaced with 319s - they won't be able to work Rugby-Birmingham as they're not quick enough and same would apply to TV stoppers and they'll struggle to keep time on Northampton / MKC - London services as well.

And the nice new maintenance facility at Northampton was built specifically to look after the 350s.....

I would have thought letting LM have all the 110mph Angel Trains 350s and Northern have all the 100mph Porterbrook 350s would be a tidy solution. At present some of the Angel 350s are maintained at Ardwick and others are maintained at Northampton. The 350/2s would need a refurbishment to meet the 'Regional Express' requirements but those 'Regional Express' services don't really need the option of 110mph running, whereas 110mph running could be utilised on services like Liverpool-Birmingham, which are currently timed for 100mph running.

I'm not familiar with the LM diagrams.

There's 37 x 350/2s and there's 10 x 350/4s, so 10 of the 37 x 350/2s could be replaced by faster 110mph trains so no concern over those not being able to keep to timings.

Could 27 of the 350/2s be switched to 319s or 323s without causing problems?

 

[DarloRich]

We aren't giving up our 350's for grotty 319's thank you very much. Cast offs for the north, new for the south. You know the score

 

[D365]

Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping the 350/2s from receiving the 110mph mods.

 

[northwichcat]

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

Apparently not.

Summary is Porterbrook themselves said 319s aren't well suited to frequent stops services. They have stated 319s could be re-engineered to be fast accelerating 75mph EMUs, that may mean they can keep to 323 timings on services like Manchester to Glossop/Hadfield but possibly not on services like Manchester to Crewe/Stoke. Also it appears no-one wants to pay for the work to do that and why should they when they are alternative perfectly suitable EMUs to run such routes?

Might be a case of extra services over this route but some of the smaller stations retaining same number of services as today so services can skip stops to maintain 323 paths.

There will be additional off-peak Macclesfield-Manchester services from December 2017 meaning off-peak Stoke-Manchester services can be speeded up. However, at peak times the timetable will be pretty much the same as it is now with 2tph between Manchester and Macclesfield doing all stops.

 

[TheGrew]

What is the relative acceleration difference between a 323 and a 350?.

 

[northwichcat]

We aren't giving up our 350's for grotty 319's thank you very much. Cast offs for the north, new for the south. You know the score

Ah but you'll get the relatively new 350/4s and 66 of the 319s are still 'South of England' trains.

Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping the 350/2s from receiving the 110mph mods.

Agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably they are off to LM as part of some direct award decision?

That could well be the case. In which case I imagine the LM Direct Award won't be officially announced until after the Northern franchise.

 

[Starmill]

For purely sentimental reasons, I went "Noooo" when I read that. My childhood is wrapped up in that noise!

 

[87015]

If 323 timings are as tight as claimed then 350s will not keep to them, as they require (on LM) 45 second stops due to the ridiculously slow door system. Times on Euston semi-fasts are slower than ever...

 

[MK Tom]

The fact the 350/2s don't have 110mph mods is probably down to their interiors, which are completely unsuitable for long-distance express work like Euston-Crewe. The 110mph timings have helped force LM to use appropriate stock on that service (/2s still show up on it but not as much as happened before Dec 2012).

Would 319s really struggle with EUS-MKC/NMP? The 321s ran those fine...

 

[northwichcat]

If 323 timings are as tight as claimed then 350s will not keep to them, as they require (on LM) 45 second stops due to the ridiculously slow door system. Times on Euston semi-fasts are slower than ever...

The 350s do have 8 double doors per set, opposed to the 6 double doors per set a 323 have, so loading and unloading should be faster once the doors are opened.

 

[causton]

The 350s do have 8 double doors per set, opposed to the 6 double doors per set a 323 have, so loading and unloading should be faster once the doors are opened.

When the doors are eventually opened... I have been on trains home that have lost 10 minutes over the course of 7 or 8 stops simply due to how slow the doors are to release and shut again! The Southern 377s along the same line are much noticeably different, as soon as it stops the driver releases the doors and they are much faster to open and close! There is no way they would keep to 323 timings. I think the best place for them is the faster trains, with less stops and higher speeds.

 

[northwichcat]

I have been on trains home that have lost 10 minutes over the course of 7 or 8 stops simply due to how slow the doors are to release and shut again!

The 350 operated journeys should be timed to allow for how long the dwell times need to be for 350s and given TOCs can be fined for late running I don't see why they would be over ambitious with dwell times. If there was a 10 minute delay it suggests to me then either the conductor carried on doing revenue duties for too long and didn't realise the doors as quickly as possible at each station, or there was some other factor like a train fault or abnormal passenger load.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As someone who works Northerns 323's on a very regular basis I can say with pretty much certainty that unless we get high quality emu's to replace them our passengers will not be impressed and just another reason to slag off Northern (even though Northern tend not to have much say in the matter)

 

[northwichcat]

As someone who works Northerns 323's on a very regular basis I can say with pretty much certainty that unless we get high quality emu's to replace them our passengers will not be impressed and just another reason to slag off Northern (even though Northern tend not to have much say in the matter)

I think it would be even worse if non-electrified Manchester area services get the proposed DEMU FLIRTs, then passengers will notice they get a downgrade at the same time as other non-electrified lines are getting an upgrade. It could even result in passengers seeing proposed electrification of their line as bad news.

 

[The Planner]

The 350 operated journeys should be timed to allow for how long the dwell times need to be for 350s and given TOCs can be fined for late running I don't see why they would be over ambitious with dwell times.

It is unlikely to be seen as a delay incident depending on how big the section is. As for appropriate dwells for the stock, yeah ok....plenty of 30 second dwells on 350s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact the 350/2s don't have 110mph mods is probably down to their interiors, which are completely unsuitable for long-distance express work like Euston-Crewe.

They are surprisingly well-suited... the "budget" Trent Valley services are used by a lot of families and the likes who quite like the groups of 6 seats rather than the large number of airline seats in 350/1s.

FWIW, I'd rather have 2+2 seated (ideally 319/2, but the other type would be fine too) 319s on LM than 350/2s. But this just seems unlikely - to me it'd make most sense to send the TPE units to LM to give the south WCML services a uniform fleet, and to purchase a new EMU fleet for Northern Regional and TPE together.

 

[Qwerty133]

They are surprisingly well-suited... the "budget" Trent Valley services are used by a lot of families and the likes who quite like the groups of 6 seats rather than the large number of airline seats in 350/1s.
.

Are you another of these commuters who think the Tring stopper should have /1s and /3s, while the longer distance services get the worse /2s?
Although well done for finding a more creative reason than 'I don't use them services' which most use for justification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you another of these commuters who think the Tring stopper should have /1s and /3s, while the longer distance services get the worse /2s?

I don't use the Tring stoppers, other than sometimes one of the few morning ones that start back from Bletchley, so I don't overly care what goes on them. But I do, from extensive use and observation throughout the network, find that the 2+2 predominantly airline seating is better for commuter use, and the 3+2 mostly facing seating better for the heavily family and small-group-oriented use of the "budget" longer-distance services, the long-distance commuters and business travellers mostly being on VT.

Though FWIW, when the 350s first came along the proposal was to use them on the Tring stoppers due to their superior acceleration, though I guess the slow doors put the kibosh on that.

 

[158722]

I would have thought letting LM have all the 110mph Angel Trains 350s and Northern have all the 100mph Porterbrook 350s would be a tidy solution. At present some of the Angel 350s are maintained at Ardwick and others are maintained at Northampton. The 350/2s would need a refurbishment to meet the 'Regional Express' requirements but those 'Regional Express' services don't really need the option of 110mph running, whereas 110mph running could be utilised on services like Liverpool-Birmingham, which are currently timed for 100mph running.

I'm not familiar with the LM diagrams.

There's 37 x 350/2s and there's 10 x 350/4s, so 10 of the 37 x 350/2s could be replaced by faster 110mph trains so no concern over those not being able to keep to timings.

Could 27 of the 350/2s be switched to 319s or 323s without causing problems?

5 350s currently used on the Walsall-Wolves services, so they would end up being replaced by 323s, leaving 22 350/2s to be potentially replaced by 319s. Including the 4 already on the way to LM, a total of around 30 319s to LMs for slower work out of Euston? As with jcollins, I'm not that familiar with the LM diagrams, especially out of Euston, but are there enough non-110mph captive diagrams to keep 30 319s occupied?

And what would Northern use 37 350/2s on? The Stoke-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool axis of Regional expresses? Liverpool-Blackpool? Manchester-Windermere? Transfer the existing LM Birmingham-Liverpool to be operated by Northern but retaining 350/2s on them? Hadfield circuit to keep up with the 323s? Endless possibilities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

5 350s currently used on the Walsall-Wolves services, so they would end up being replaced by 323s, leaving 22 350/2s to be potentially replaced by 319s. Including the 4 already on the way to LM, a total of around 30 319s to LMs for slower work out of Euston? As with jcollins, I'm not that familiar with the LM diagrams, especially out of Euston, but are there enough non-110mph captive diagrams to keep 30 319s occupied?

The 100mph diagrams are self-contained, so I'd say yes. Indeed, as a LM user I'd rather have 30 319s than 22 350s; it would for instance allow all peak slow and semifast departures from Euston to be 12-car and additionally make some of the overcrowded shoulder-peak services 8-car. So no problems there, though I would prefer 2+2 seating in whatever we get (i.e. the ex-Cityflyer or Brighton Express units).

Transfer the existing LM Birmingham-Liverpool to be operated by Northern but retaining 350/2s on them?

There is a very strong case for this, it's such an outpost of LM that it is poorly resourced, unpunctual and unreliable.

But for them to meet the RE standard they'd need to be reseated to 2+2.