Assuming no further electrification, there's not very much (319s) apart that really need binned.
The 323s are decent, and a big enough set that there's no problems with microfleets. They're also probably astoundingly cheap atm, given that WMT didn't want them and northern thought about getting rid of theirs. As above, there are so pragmatic issues (DOO and SDO) to replacing 323s with a new build, so in all honesty I don't expect them to go.
If you replaced the 16x4car 333s with 32x3car 331s, that would be great for capacity, but not so great for comfort. Personally I'd assume a program of platform lengthening to be announced to make such a swap easier, but that's not currently in the pipeline.
If more wires are getting strung up, that would be great, but remember that so far we don't know how far the wires are going to go. The lead time on knitting is significantly longer than the lead time for new rolling stock. It seems a bit premature to be discussing the purchase of new trains without knowing if there will be enough work for them.
But this is a bit of a chicken and egg style situation, so I guess something will have to change soonish.
Importantly, the 323's have a good passenger experience. And the acceleration is pretty good, although they are outclassed by the 331's these days.
I'm inclined to think that the simplicity of standardising on an entirely 3-car CAF fleet, run singly or as pairs, would have a considerable benefit.
If, for example, you could have everything on Castlefield running in that manner, you could mark door positions or even have pseudo-platform edge door fences which would help control the baying mob.
That would be nice. Longer train lengths have definately helped things on the Castlefield Corridor, as has electrification of the Bolton corridor.
I agree with this. Some services should retain tables though, perhaps predominantly express/long distance ones.
If I’m understanding correctly, you’re suggesting a fully 3 car fleet. Many services, particularly Leeds based, should definitely have 4 cars.
I would certainly extend all the 195s to 3 though. 2-car DMUs have no place on the mainline.
Ugh, those two car sets are a joke. Even during the COVID summer, I saw a number going through Castlefield that were overcrowded. There may be a few branch lines where they are enough, but a two car train going through one of the most congested rail corridors in the country is a bit of a joke really.
3+2 seating belongs in the bin. 2+2 seating but with more airline style seats with less tables.
Totally agree. I don't think the UK really has the loading gauge for it, the seats are far too small. I doubt after covid people are going to be comfortable being that shoulder to shoulder either. Plus, every time I've been on 3+2, people just put their bag on the middle seat to stop people sitting there.
Not sure why the surprise. Northern have consistently said they are looking to procure more new units - not so much in terms of capacity but to homologise their fleet to reduce operating costs significantly in terms of reducing staff training and maintenance costs. I would expect any more 195/331s to be a small order for bi-mode units.
Northern's passenger figures actually look relatively stable compared to other franchises such as long distance routes and London commuter services which seem to be most at risk from the effects of Covid and shift to WFH.
Yeah, the regional services have been holding up relatively well during the pandemic. I think demand will return for most places, but Northern had a decent resurgence of passengers during the summer, I was on some fairly busy trains then.
I think it is hard to predict exactly what changes will happen after Covid. Things may recover quickly back to the old normal, but more likely there will be a big economic shift. Wether this will be positive or negative remains to be seen, knowing the impact on travel demands may very well require a crystal ball. However, considering climate change and the impact on health from air pollution, expanding the availability and capacity of rail services seems like a very sensible option. Especially if cities want to use more space for active travel and to allow local communities to be a little less bogged down in traffic.
Its a pity no bidder for Northern wanted or was allowed to do a total fleet replacement in 2015, along the lines of Greater Anglia whose rural lines have had a whopping upgrade in rolling stock quality. 156 and 150's won't last forever
Yeah, the DfT probably wouldn't let the North have too many nice things. This is the same DfT that said replacing Pacers would be "poor value for money".
The 156's and 150's will indeed not last forever. They were looking pretty raggedy about ten years ago, and considering the lead times on rolling stock, you don't want to let them become too unreliable before you start looking at options for replacement.
To be fair that is 3 families of trains, Sprinters, Turbostars and Civities and although not sharing any parts the 170s can work with Sprinters. I don't really agree with your classification, the subclasses will have very significant amounts in common so counting them seperately is not fair. I would classify it as
- 150
- 153/155
- 156
- 158
Half a point as not all 158s have the same engine but share other components
- 170
- 195
Ordering new diesel trains is politically impossible, ordering 195s would be very difficult with the 2040 date so close. The much better choice is electrification, have a look at the list of Northern routes operated by DMUs, you'll notice there are routes between big cities which aren't electrified such as Manchester to Leeds (although I think this is happening as part of Transpennine electrification, still not electrifying the whole thing though) and the Calder Valley Line.
Ideally we should be electrifying and then making do with existing 195s, 170s and 158s on the remaining routes.
Unfortunately, ordering new diesel units is politically impossible, but getting more electrification also is too. I don't know if gov expects the railways to run on fairy dust or something.
Battery technology is not going to get much better. Indeed, we are already essentially at the limit of it's capabilities now in terms of weight and capacity. Tesla showed off their increased volume of batteries over 10 years, marketing one as holding 50% more charge. When someone did the math, they found out the new cell was 46% bigger than the old one. So in reality, 10 years gave them a 4% boost in charge per unit volume.
Hydrogen does solve this problem, but introduces it's own inefficiencies and continued operational expenses. Ultimately, we're just going to have to bite the bullet on electrification sooner rather than later. The problems will resolve themselves as the logistics and engineering capacity grows and becomes more capable. Things will be rough to start with, this isn't something we have had much experience with in recent decades. But the results will be fantastic. Indeed, the bolton corridor now runs much longer, more comfortable, faster and greener trains than it did before. Even the 319's were an upgrade compared to the 150's on the line before.
The fact we have surplus EMUs flying about is testament to the fact they are easier to build, and they have a longer, more useful, working life. It is expected you can get about 40 years out of an EMU, Vs 30 from a DMU.
The fact Windemere still isn't electrified is a joke. It's a very short amount of electrification required, to get rid of a hell of a lot of running under wires. I'm sure it would be a fantastic selling point for those looking to visit the lakes in a more eco-friendly manner.
www.railforums.co.uk
