Cascading: What train will go where after electrification?

[Parallel]

143s are being made DDA compliment so there's no reason for them to be withdrawn.

Perhaps these could either be coupled together or with 150s for use on the shorter lines around Bristol (BTM - Severn Beach/Avonmouth, Weston Super Mare - Bristol Parkway, maybe selected BTM - Westbury services).

Can 166s and 165s be coupled to the 15x range? If the 166s are three coaches and will retain first class, strengthening on some services will be needed on the Portsmouth run. Will there be enough 165s and 166s to run the services in the west (not inc Devon/Cornwall) including strengthening services, bearing in mind the longer distances, or will many 150s, 158s or 153s be retained (with possibly 143s joining them)? The document suggests they will try and get some Turbos on the Barnstaple line too which is something to consider. I don't know much about the current Thames Valley fleet!

 

[IanXC]

EMT will need to gain some units from somewhere.

For what purpose?

In any case the opportunity does arise from remapping proposals with Northern and TPE.

 

[Manchester77]

For what purpose?

In any case the opportunity does arise from remapping proposals with Northern and TPE.

Strengthening the rural services? That's what I'd guess based on threads on here some extra 153s can't be a bad thing for EMT.

 

[Class83]

Few points on the last few posts:
170s don't fit onto the platforms on Bedford to Bletchley.
LM could release the 150s when the chase is electrified, but I believe it's already planned for them to remain LM units for the time being. They however couldn't lose both the 150s and 153s as they are the only units cleared for Bedford to Bletchley and Coventry to Nuneaton.
EMT will need to gain some units from somewhere.
143s are being made DDA compliment so there's no reason for them to be withdrawn.

If the Liverpool-Norwich service is split at Nottingham and the Nottingham-Liverpool section is run using 185s freed up by TPE North electrification then that should be worth a few (10ish?) 158s to EMT.

Otherwise I agree that the Scotrail 170s are going nowhere, when EGIP is done they'll probably pass on the 156s (in return for about 8 158s) which could leave northern with 319s (+ current electrics) on electrified routes, 150s for non-electrified PTE/commuter routes, 156s for rural routes (Cumbrian Coast/S+C) and some 158s/185s for longer distance routes (e.g. York-Scarborough)

SWT will probably have to survive on a diet of internally cascaded 16X units and improving what they have. LM diesels, don't know too much about that but they got a batch of 172s recently, don't have any 14Xs and should get some electrification so doubt there is much heading their way.

 

[Suraggu]

Perhaps these could either be coupled together or with 150s for use on the shorter lines around Bristol (BTM - Severn Beach/Avonmouth, Weston Super Mare - Bristol Parkway, maybe selected BTM - Westbury services).

Can 166s and 165s be coupled to the 15x range? If the 166s are three coaches and will retain first class, strengthening on some services will be needed on the Portsmouth run. Will there be enough 165s and 166s to run the services in the west (not inc Devon/Cornwall) including strengthening services, bearing in mind the longer distances, or will many 150s, 158s or 153s be retained (with possibly 143s joining them)? The document suggests they will try and get some Turbos on the Barnstaple line too which is something to consider. I don't know much about the current Thames Valley fleet!

They are people movers and in my opinion with my previous experience working on them, very effective to take vast amounts of commuters in and out of Paddington. High seating density (Class 165 3 car 16F/270S, Class 166 3 car 16F/Similar Standard numbers) and the Class 166's have large luggage racks in place of some seating.
The problem with the seating is its high density 3+2 in standard and some customers believe that is a retro step.

Another issue is acceleration with the Perkins engines is good 0-55mph but lacks from 55-90mph so they are perfect for Bristol Metro, Devon Metro but I've always said they are commuter trains But they cope well on Paddington -Worcester services.
Also with added TPWS and OTMR and Class 166 Cab and saloon Air conditioning they weigh more and that all adds strain on the 350hp Perkins engine.

 

[swt_passenger]

SWT will probably have to survive on a diet of internally cascaded 16X units and improving what they have.

Did you mean FGW here? SWT don't operate 165/6...

 

[Manchester77]

If the Liverpool-Norwich service is split at Nottingham and the Nottingham-Liverpool section is run using 185s freed up by TPE North electrification then that should be worth a few (10ish?) 158s to EMT.

I think people may see this as a bad thing since a 185 has just 154 standard seats and even if the first class area was replaced by standard seating you still wouldn't have as many seats as you do today with 4 car 158s (292 seats based on porterbrook's numbers) so unless you want to lengthen all the platforms on the route to take 6 cars then 185s aren't a good option for this busy route.

 

[IanXC]

I think people may see this as a bad thing since a 185 has just 154 standard seats and even if the first class area was replaced by standard seating you still wouldn't have as many seats as you do today with 4 car 158s (292 seats based on porterbrook's numbers) so unless you want to lengthen all the platforms on the route to take 6 cars then 185s aren't a good option for this busy route.

Although there's a distinct possibility of replacing 2x 158 and 1x 185 with 3x 185 per hour... 20 minute express frequency seems to be on the agenda...

 

[Qwerty133]

For what purpose?

In any case the opportunity does arise from remapping proposals with Northern and TPE.

There isn't a single route that a single 153 past dad mods will be big enough for, so it makes sense to reform as 155s, and they need more units to allow this to happen.

 

[Manchester77]

Although there's a distinct possibility of replacing 2x 158 and 1x 185 with 3x 185 per hour... 20 minute express frequency seems to be on the agenda...

Sounds interesting, I do worry it'll result on an operation princess style affair where the higher frequency gets more people but there's not as much capacity there to cater for the extra people.

 

[Hardcastle]

Why reform the 155s when you can couple two 153s together where required & avoid the expense of conversion.

 

[59CosG95]

Why reform the 155s when you can couple two 153s together where required & avoid the expense of conversion.

Because the 153s aren't in the best state: sagging bodyframes, corrosion, oh my! And converting the 153s into 155s gets rid of an engine, allowing for a disabled toilet to be fitted.

 

[Suraggu]

Because the 153s aren't in the best state: sagging bodyframes, corrosion, oh my! And converting the 153s into 155s gets rid of an engine, allowing for a disabled toilet to be fitted.

Getting rid of one engine when being reformed into a Class 155... Errr um no that wouldn't happen. Reforming Class 153 into 155 means that one DDA compliant and convert the other toilet space Into a Bike/Flip up seating space as the luggage rack by the toilet would have to be removed because of the DDA rules.

 

[59CosG95]

Getting rid of one engine when being reformed into a Class 155... Errr um no that wouldn't happen. Reforming Class 153 into 155 means that one DDA compliant and convert the other toilet space Into a Bike/Flip up seating space as the luggage rack by the toilet would have to be removed because of the DDA rules.

Shows how little I know about the conversion then!

 

[northwichcat]

I think people may see this as a bad thing since a 185 has just 154 standard seats and even if the first class area was replaced by standard seating you still wouldn't have as many seats as you do today with 4 car 158s (292 seats based on porterbrook's numbers) so unless you want to lengthen all the platforms on the route to take 6 cars then 185s aren't a good option for this busy route.

Network Rail's CP5 plans include platform lengthening to allow:

6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although there's a distinct possibility of replacing 2x 158 and 1x 185 with 3x 185 per hour... 20 minute express frequency seems to be on the agenda...

3tph (express) between Manchester and Sheffield via Stockport is being considered. However, 3tph (semi-fast) between Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington isn't and it wouldn't work unless some of the smaller stations had a reduced frequency of service. The Northern/TPE consultation document suggested Sheffield would have direct trains to at least two out of Liverpool, Manchester Airport and Chester.

If you try to do 2tph between Liverpool and Sheffield and 3tph between Manchester and Sheffield then you won't get a nice clockwork timetable. The timetabling also depends if Selby-Hull is a CP5 electrification project. If not I'd guess at North/South TPE being:
* Hourly Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly-Hull (semi-fast diesel)
* Hourly Piccadilly-Selby (semi-fast electric)
* Hourly Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly-Sheffield-Nottingham (semi-fast diesel)
* Hourly Chester-Warrington-Sheffield (semi-fast diesel)
* Hourly Manchester Airport-Doncaster-Hull/Cleethorpes (semi-fast diesel)
* Half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle via Victoria (express electric)
* Half-hourly Airport-York via Victoria (express electric)

That way you can have a 20 minute frequency between Piccadilly and Sheffield and a 30 minute frequency between Piccadilly and Liverpool via Warrington.

If you electrify Selby-Hull then maybe terminate both the Hull and Doncaster and beyond services at Piccadilly and run a Liverpool-Warrington-Airport service in the gap left. Alternatively, if there's a path maybe run a Warrington Bank Quay-Hull electric service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why reform the 155s when you can couple two 153s together where required & avoid the expense of conversion.

It could be cheaper to reform them - the redundant cabs don't have to be removed. If they remain as 1 carriage trains each individual 153 must meet the accessibility standards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

convert the other toilet space

Non-accessible toilets can remain on 2 car train if there's an accessible toilet elsewhere on the train. However, there's also a requirement for all train toilets to be retention toilets by the end of 2019.

 

[edwin_m]

Because the 153s aren't in the best state: sagging bodyframes, corrosion, oh my! And converting the 153s into 155s gets rid of an engine, allowing for a disabled toilet to be fitted.

Each 155 has two engines. A 153 has only one and is pretty sluggish even with that. If the 153s were formed into permanently coupled two-car sets there would be no getting rid of engines but it would be possible to get rid of one toilet.

 

[Class83]

Network Rail's CP5 plans include platform lengthening to allow:

6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


3tph (express) between Manchester and Sheffield via Stockport is being considered. However, 3tph (semi-fast) between Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington isn't and it wouldn't work unless some of the smaller stations had a reduced frequency of service. The Northern/TPE consultation document suggested Sheffield would have direct trains to at least two out of Liverpool, Manchester Airport and Chester.

If you try to do 2tph between Liverpool and Sheffield and 3tph between Manchester and Sheffield then you won't get a nice clockwork timetable. The timetabling also depends if Selby-Hull is a CP5 electrification project. If not I'd guess at North/South TPE being:
* Hourly Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly-Hull (semi-fast diesel)
* Hourly Piccadilly-Selby (semi-fast electric)
* Hourly Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly-Sheffield-Nottingham (semi-fast diesel)
* Hourly Chester-Warrington-Sheffield (semi-fast diesel)
* Hourly Manchester Airport-Doncaster-Hull/Cleethorpes (semi-fast diesel)
* Half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle via Victoria (express electric)
* Half-hourly Airport-York via Victoria (express electric)

That way you can have a 20 minute frequency between Piccadilly and Sheffield and a 30 minute frequency between Piccadilly and Liverpool via Warrington.

If you electrify Selby-Hull then maybe terminate both the Hull and Doncaster and beyond services at Piccadilly and run a Liverpool-Warrington-Airport service in the gap left. Alternatively, if there's a path maybe run a Warrington Bank Quay-Hull electric service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It could be cheaper to reform them - the redundant cabs don't have to be removed. If they remain as 1 carriage trains each individual 153 must meet the accessibility standards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Non-accessible toilets can remain on 2 car train if there's an accessible toilet elsewhere on the train. However, there's also a requirement for all train toilets to be retention toilets by the end of 2019.

How many trains are you trying to fit through the Hope Valley each hour? I think the plans are that they can fit one extra 'fast' train in along with the current 2 'fasts' and stopper each hour. I'd suggest that they'd be best with half-hourly Liverpool to Sheffield with one extending to Nottingham and one to Hull, then then between those have a 'fast' MIA-MAN-SHF-CLE (the current TPE service, perhaps with an extra stop in Dore) and the stopper in the other gap.

On the capacity front, I really hope that 158 units are replaced by an equivalent number of 185 units.

 

[455driver]

Who cares what goes where, we all know you lot will moan like fig about "why did they get X while we got Y" etc etc!


Note-
I am not being (too) serious!

 

[northwichcat]

How many trains are you trying to fit through the Hope Valley each hour?

I actually forgot to include Liverpool-Nottingham so only listed 2 instead of 3. I think you must have been seeing double when you read my post.

 

[Philip]

I know it won't happen but I'd seriously look at halving the number of North TPE services from the proposed 6 to 3 per hour. Then use the surplus units to double form every North TPE service barring some quieter late evening services maybe. Hopefully the new order of EMUs will consist of 5 car trains with corridor connection to make doubling up more practical. All 3 services (Man Pic - Selby/Hull, Liverpool - Newcastle, Manchester Airport - York) should run fast between Manchester and Leeds, with maybe the Hull service stopping at Stalybridge and Dewsbury but no extra stops. Keep the Man Vic - Huddersfield stopper separate, don't split it up, remember people use that for the ale trail. That way you can have 3 express trains per hour each formed of 10 coaches, similar to the Londons. I don't see anything wrong with that, 6 trains per hour on the current infrastructure is asking for problems with track capacity, even if in theory it's possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As for South TPE, assuming it isn't wired, I'd keep the Liverpool - Nottingham as it is regarding stopping pattern but replace the Scarborough service by diverting the semi-fast Liverpool - Man Airport via the Cheshire Lines, keeping a similar number of stops (Liverpool S Parkway, Warrington, Birchwood with perhaps some peak services alternating between Widnes, Irlam and Urmston).
Manchester Airport to Sheffield can then become half hourly, one being the existing Cleethorpes fast service then a semi fast shuttle to Sheffield calling at Marple, New Mills and Dore. To ease any problems with stopping trains holding up the fasts the Man Pic to Sheffield stopper should run non-stop to Marple, then New Mills and all stops to Sheffield thereafter. The hourly Man Pic to New Mills shuttle can serve all the stations on the line via Marple.

 

[edwin_m]

I largely agree with you on the Manchester-Leeds service - going from 15min interval to 10min only improves passenger convenience slightly and to me it's not sensible to run so many short trains. It might also allow all fast services to use Victoria rather some still using Piccadilly as seems to be the plan at present.

However I don't think an Airport-Sheffield service would go via Marple as it would have to cross all tracks at Piccadilly. This is one of the things that re-routeing them via Ordsall Curve and Victoria is supposed to avoid. I suppose it could use Victoria than the connection back to Ashburys but it would be a very long way round.

 

[northwichcat]

I largely agree with you on the Manchester-Leeds service - going from 15min interval to 10min only improves passenger convenience slightly and to me it's not sensible to run so many short trains. .

That's not the idea. The idea is for a Leeds train every 15 minutes from Victoria and one every 15 minutes from Piccadilly, with the opening of the Ordsall Chord it'll be possible for Airport-York services to serve both. The Victoria services will be Intercity style services, while the Piccadilly only services will be semi-fast regional services.

 

[edwin_m]

So Victoria would be the station of choice for passengers going to Huddersfield, Leeds and beyond. In which case the two per hour (?) that run from Piccadilly, don't serve Victoria and run semi-fast aren't really part of the core fast service which is effectively only four per hour anyway.

 

[Philip]

That's not the idea. The idea is for a Leeds train every 15 minutes from Victoria and one every 15 minutes from Piccadilly, with the opening of the Ordsall Chord it'll be possible for Airport-York services to serve both. The Victoria services will be Intercity style services, while the Piccadilly only services will be semi-fast regional services.

It may be the idea but I don't see it working, without 4 tracks on the Standedge route it will just lead to delays. Reducing North TPE frequency to 3 trains per hour but with long trains will ease overcrowding and also make operations much more efficient.

I guess you could just start my proposed semi fast Sheffield service at Piccadilly. But here is another reason why longer trains are the way forward over increased frequency - paths into Piccadilly. Ok so trains from the main throat will be diverted into platforms 13 and 14 but that will affect capacity and paths to Liverpool and Bolton and Preston that have to share with new North TPE paths.

 

[northwichcat]

It may be the idea but I don't see it working, without 4 tracks on the Standedge route it will just lead to delays. Reducing North TPE frequency to 3 trains per hour but with long trains will ease overcrowding and also make operations much more efficient.

I guess you could just start my proposed semi fast Sheffield service at Piccadilly. But here is another reason why longer trains are the way forward over increased frequency - paths into Piccadilly. Ok so trains from the main throat will be diverted into platforms 13 and 14 but that will affect capacity and paths to Liverpool and Bolton and Preston that have to share with new North TPE paths.

Don't forget longer trains occupy signalling sections for longer.

The way it's planned

the northbound departures from Victoria should be something like xx:00 (Newcastle), xx:15 (York), xx:30 (Newcastle), xx:45 (York)

and from Piccadilly something like:
xx:05 (York via Victoria), xx:20 (Hull semi-fast via Guide Bridge), xx:35 (York via Victoria), xx:50 (Selby semi-fast via Guide Bridge)

The Hull service shouldn't catch up the York service even if it's late because the York one will only call at Huddersfield between Manchester and Leeds, while the Hull service will have 5 stations to call at before Leeds.

The Piccadilly semi-fasts would be restricted to 4 car but most of the Victoria services could probably run as 8 car if needed.

 

[158756]

It may be the idea but I don't see it working, without 4 tracks on the Standedge route it will just lead to delays. Reducing North TPE frequency to 3 trains per hour but with long trains will ease overcrowding and also make operations much more efficient.

I guess you could just start my proposed semi fast Sheffield service at Piccadilly. But here is another reason why longer trains are the way forward over increased frequency - paths into Piccadilly. Ok so trains from the main throat will be diverted into platforms 13 and 14 but that will affect capacity and paths to Liverpool and Bolton and Preston that have to share with new North TPE paths.

Why on earth would Standedge need 4 tracks if it isn't going to have any stoppers? It manages 6tph today with one calling at all stations.

As for Piccadilly, that's precisely what the Ordsall Chord does- North TPE ,even at 6tph, will use less capacity at Piccadilly than it does today:
(North TPE frequencies today and with Ordsall Chord+6tph)
13,14(15,16 if they get built)-Oxford Road:Today 1tph, Chord - 2tph
Piccadilly-Airport: Today 2 tph , Chord 2 tph
Piccadilly-Ardwick: Today 4 tph, Chord 2 tph
Moves from the Airport or Oxford Road to Ardwick: Today 6 per hour, Chord-none

 

[Olaf]

London Overground Class 172's to Chiltern once Electrification has been completed and 378's appear.

London Midland release Class 150's to Northern once Walsall -Rugeley has been electrified and 350's plough the route releasing Class 170's for Bedford -Bletchley.

London Midland Class 153's reformed into Class 155's and sent to FGW.

First Great Western recieve Class 387's cascades from Thameslink releasing Class 165's and Class 166's to West Diagrams (We know Gauging work is being carried out in the west country). Small Class 166 Fleet for North Downs service.

Class 165/1 replace Class 150 which are sent to Northern to replace Class 142

FGW Class 153's reformed into Class 155's and with ex LM Class 153's reformed into class 155, class 143's released due to non DDA compliancy.

Class 158's released by Class 166's heading for Cardiff -Portsmouth Diagrams sent to Northern to help replace Class 142's.

Class 319's sent to Northern and small fleet to FGW for Bristol Metro -Cardiff service

Is that what is actually planned or a proposal?

 

[northwichcat]

Is that what is actually planned or a proposal?

There is no official DfT rolling stock strategy available to the public anymore. 165/6s being transferred on to Sprinter routes in the FGW franchise is set to happen subject to successful clearance work and FGW are expected to get 319s as well as Northern. Other than that it's all speculation.

 

[Olaf]

There is no official DfT rolling stock strategy available to the public anymore. 165/6s being transferred on to Sprinter routes in the FGW franchise is set to happen subject to successful clearance work and FGW are expected to get 319s as well as Northern. Other than that it's all speculation.

Re Rolling Stock Strategy: The DfT strategy is for the industry to define what happens and so it is the ROSCOs and the RDG that are defining the strategy and implementation plans.

Re details; Thanks, that is what I guessed it would be.

 

[Manchester77]

Re Rolling Stock Strategy: The DfT strategy is for the industry to define what happens and so it is the ROSCOs and the RDG that are defining the strategy and implementation plans.

Re details; Thanks, that is what I guessed it would be.

That may well be their official strategy but as has been pointed out by modern railways and others (most likely) it's just a sound bite, the DfT are heavily involved within rolling stock. They authorised the transfer of the 170/3s from TPE, they made the orders of 377/6s and /7s using southern, they've got their own pet project (IEP) and set out a lot of what has to be cascaded with ITTs. What they need to do is either commit to their sound bite of no involvement or admit that they are involved and set out a rolling stock strategy. Bloody hell BR had less state intervention in rolling stock than we have now.