323s... The future?

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by 61653 HTAFC, 10 Apr 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,605
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    On occasion the "319s Cascade to Northern" thread is waylaid by discussion of 323s and their superior acceleration, etc. I thought it would make sense to have a new thread to discuss the future of the fleet...

    The 323s are currently appreciated by passengers in both areas where they operate (the unpleasant incident in the West Midlands the other day notwithstanding!). Timetables, platform lengths etc., have in many cases been tailored to the performance and length of these units. Additionally the fleet sizes were specified by a cash-starved BR with little room for improvement in the event of rising passenger numbers, and a possible follow-on order for Airedale/Wharfedale was shelved in favour of 308s, possibly because of approaching privatisation.

    With the coming improvements in the West Midlands (Redditch frequency, Bromsgrove extension, Chase Line electrification), it's likely that LM will require additional units in the coming years. Platform lengths on the Cross City line are tailored to 6x23m formations, so the only option without additional infrastructure costs would be extra 323s or new build.

    On Northern, the 323s are used on South Manchester services from Piccadilly to Stoke/Macclesfield; Glossop/Hadfield; and Airport/Alderley Edge/Crewe. Of these three groups, Macclesfield and Stoke are currently timetabled is such a way that 323s are the only suitable traction due to needing to fit between Virgin expresses. There is also an argument for 3-car EMUs for the coming electric services to Preston/Bolton/Blackpool, to allow 6-car peak formations which is the current limit at Salford Crescent.

    Most solutions (some more amateur than others!) on here involve concentrating all 323s in either Birmingham or Manchester, though both would involve some compromise, especially as there is of course no guarantee of new-build to replace the lost units. Or, the Northern fleet could be cut back to just units for the Stoke and Hadfield lines with 319s serving the Airport and Crewe.

    If the fleet was to be concentrated in one area I'd be on #TeamManchester due to the issues being about more than just length, though if new-build can be justified as a replacement that would make the matter moot. Putting the Crayonista hat on I'd send the whole fleet 'home' to West Yorkshire with a combination of 333s and New Build for Brum and Manchester!

    Any thoughts?
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2015
  2. BantamMenace

    BantamMenace Member

    Messages:
    451
    Joined:
    2 Dec 2013
    3-car 323s in West Yorkshire wouldnt be ideal at all given that 4-car struggles to cope in the peaks at current and as previously discussed 6-car isnt possible without great expense at Shipley.

    Long term though I think 6-car Airedale and Wharfedale services should be made possible, possible a Leeds city deal or Rail North body is needed to pay for it.
     
  3. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    25,662
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Like I've pointed out in other threads, the Northern ITT states bidders can assume all the EMUs currently available to Northern will be available for them to use from April 2016.

    As another user pointed out in another thread LM received 7 x 350/3s which are supposed to cover their additional electric services required before the end of the franchise, with 3 x 350/3s also being provided to provide capacity enhancements on existing electric services.

    Slight error in the original post. The 323s are needed on the Stoke services to be able to fit between the 2tph Manchester-London via Stoke and the 2tph Manchester-Birmingham via Stoke. Glossop/Hadfield need fast acceleration to not slow down other services (Northern and TPE) going through Guide Bridge. Apparently some Glossop/Hadfield platforms are not currently long enough to take 4 car 319s or equivalent.

    I think the 'all 323s in Birmingham' relates to the dismissed proposal for Northern to get a new EMU order and release their 321/3s. Of course the ITT for a new EMU would have been specified for the type of services it will run, not the type it originally ran when new.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    In 2009 it was proposed West Yorks would keep the 16 x 333s and would get an add-on of 3 car EMUs (the same type Manchester would get) to replace the 321s and for extra capacity (opposed to the 322s.) That would have allowed 3 cars on the quietest services, 6 cars on the busiest and 4 cars on the rest.
     
  4. 61653 HTAFC

    61653 HTAFC Established Member

    Messages:
    6,605
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Another planet...
    Just a slight correction. 6 cars is possible at Shipley platform 2 without realignment of the triangle. The issue is with anything above that, meaning the current fleet has a limit of 1x333.
     
  5. evergreenadam

    evergreenadam Member

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2013
    Why do the class 323 units have such superior acceleration? Just wondering why other EMU stock was not built with it too, surely other routes could have also benefited from improved acceleration? Are the 319s/321s particularly slow? How do the 333s perform in comparison?
     
  6. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    10,985
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    The "PEP" derived EMUs in the 1970s (classes 313-315 and 507-508) had motors on all axles of both end cars, giving 50% or 67% of axles motored so good acceleration particularly at lower speeds. BR must have decided to save some money with the next generation of units (317-322 and 455) because they only put motors on one car out of the four (three in the case of 318 and 320). Although the motors are bigger the acceleration is less good because it is limited by the proportion of the train weight that sits on motored axles.

    323 were specified for high performance so went back to having motors on two cars out of three. Also by that time BR had approved the use of three-phase drives and motors, which have better acceleration than DC motors particularly at higher speeds.
     
  7. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,540
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    Does anybody here have actual figures for acceleration?* It was know way back for first and second generation AC EMUs.

    * Of course it would be a standardised figure on level track with good railhead conditions.
     
    Last edited: 11 Apr 2015
  8. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    25,662
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Porterbrook have chosen to not make such figures public in their glossy brochures even though they have details about how 319s could be re-engineered as 3 car trains to allow faster acceleration.

    So it's not clear whether they don't have exact figures or whether the 323s specification is so good it would make Porterbrook's leasing costs for older EMUs look unreasonable. They already claim the 323s almost offer as much capacity as the older 4 car trains but for a lower cost and adjusting leasing charges wouldn't affect the fact a 323 has much lower track access charges than a 319.
     
    Last edited: 11 Apr 2015
  9. BantamMenace

    BantamMenace Member

    Messages:
    451
    Joined:
    2 Dec 2013
    The 333s are noted for their good acceleration, I would imagine this is around the same as a 323 although i have nothing to back that up with.
     
  10. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    25,662
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    The 323s were really the first of the next generation of AC EMUs so I imagine the case is they are the oldest trains which can accelerate at the rate which they can, opposed to the only trains which can accelerate that quickly. I imagine the 350s can accelerate as well as the 323s, if not better.
     
  11. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,540
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    I've heard that before but the figures must be known somewhere by the users, (TOCs and NR) for both timetabling and signalling/track layout purposes.
    Many years ago when the 312s were introduced, there was an article that stated why their relatively low acceleration was specified (1.1mph/s). The article mentioned that the 309s were rated at 0.9mph/s and the 75mph AM4,5 etc. were all about 1.4mph/s. These figures were used with distance/time graphs to demonstrate that the new units' acceleration maintained paths and their headways in amongst mixed traffic without resorting to the sledgehammer approach of overpowering them.
     
  12. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    10,985
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    The acceleration is only constant at the lower end of the speed range, and if you ever see a figure quoted that is probably what it means. Above a certain speed acceleration is limited by the power or the torque that the traction motors can put out, so it will reduce.

    If anyone wants to know it can be estimated quite easily by finding a station with level track and no speed restrictions, taking the time from start to passing the next few quarter mileposts, and doing a bit of graphing. A colleague of mine has produced something that will work it out from GPS readings.
     
  13. MCR247

    MCR247 Established Member

    Messages:
    9,041
    Joined:
    7 Nov 2008
    Whilst I've never seen it from an official source, a while ago 350s were said to be the fastest accelerating UK train. This would've probably been when the 350/2s were new or fairly new so wouldn't have taken into account 378/379/380/387
     
  14. D365

    D365 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,161
    Joined:
    29 Jun 2012
    Didn't it state on the Class 360 Wikipedia article for a long time (certainly since before the Class 379 was launched) that this type had the greatest acceleration of any unit in the Anglia fleet? Has not been validated on how it stacks up against the Electrostar.
     
  15. MCR247

    MCR247 Established Member

    Messages:
    9,041
    Joined:
    7 Nov 2008
    I assume 360/1s and 350s have the same/virtually the same acceleration. Considering the age of rest of the Anglia fleet that must be true
     
  16. SpacePhoenix

    SpacePhoenix Established Member

    Messages:
    5,389
    Joined:
    18 Mar 2014
    Class 380s probably have the same acceleration and I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said for 444s and 450s if they were to ever run on overhead
     
  17. CharlieSpotted

    CharlieSpotted Member

    Messages:
    372
    Joined:
    21 May 2014
    They are? I always disliked them when I commuted on the Cross City... though perhaps that's more to do with the line, and the operator, than the vehicles themselves?

    They're certainly very prone to breakdowns...
     
  18. 40129

    40129 Member

    Messages:
    248
    Joined:
    23 May 2014
    Re acceleration, I've heard drivers in the West Midlands complain about cl-350s being sluggish compared to cl-323s.

    Re the future, will the cl-323s need to be modified in order to continue in service beyond 2019. The units I've travelled on - mostly LM - don't have universal washrooms or standard door open buttons.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page