Class 319's Brochure

[LNW-GW Joint]

Merseyrail has already recruited someone in a role to manage the procurement of new stock and has already invited expressions of interest from manufactures. They will almost certainly need steerable axis on the bogies too.

Just found this gem in the NR CP5 plan: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/strategic-business-plan-for-cp5/

LNW Route Plan p69

DC Train fleet (Merseytravel)
There is currently insufficient information on the technical and mechanical elements of the new rolling stock anticipated on the Merseyrail DC network to understand what electrification infrastructure works might be required to support this. For example, it is not known if the fleet will be light or heavy weight, dual voltage, have regenerative braking or air-conditioning.

 

[Electrostar]

IMHO the 319/1s always looked better than the 319/0s due to the revised whiter NSE livery which extended around the skirt. Aren't the 325s essentially 319s with Networker cabs?

 

[sprinterguy]

IMHO the 319/1s always looked better than the 319/0s due to the revised whiter NSE livery which extended around the skirt. Aren't the 325s essentially 319s with Networker cabs?

Yep, they certainly are. And I agree with you on 319/1s vice 319/0s, too: In fact, I think that the cab treatment of the 319s in general looks much smarter and tidier than many of the other mark 3 bodyshell derived MUs, such as the 317s and 150s (Both variants in both cases).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Don't forget the 319s have 20m carriages meaning a 6 car 319 would only be 5m longer than the 5 car 180s that Northern used to use.

Maybe so, but then the 180s only went along one route that the 319s would be used for and the other lines the 319s would go on would have platforms that could not contain a 180 (infact I think a pair of 156s only just fit in some), nevermind a train that is longer than a 180.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Do the 333's not have SDO?

I'm not in the industry so can't comment on this. however the issue at Shipley is not simply the platform lengths- An 8-car 333 in P2 at Shipley would foul the junction for platforms 3 & 4, and likewise 8 cars in P1 would foul the Skipton-Bradford curve for P5.

 

[pemma]

Maybe so, but then the 180s only went along one route that the 319s would be used for and the other lines the 319s would go on would have platforms that could not contain a 180 (infact I think a pair of 156s only just fit in some), nevermind a train that is longer than a 180.

That 'one route' equates to around half of the services set to get class 319s in the North at present and is also the route where there are currently rather cosy 4 car Sprinter services.

Chat Moss could get the 4 car option to leave the 3 car option and doubling up for Preston/Blackpool.

I think Woodsmoor was the station which had an issue with the 180s but someone reported on here that the 4 car Buxton line platforms are due to be extended to 6 car.

 

[tbtc]

Don't forget the 319s have 20m carriages meaning a 6 car 319 would only be 5m longer than the 5 car 180s that Northern used to use.

Although a five coach 180 only had about as many seats as a four coach 156 does - if I remember correctly the 180s weren't exactly "high density".

 

[pemma]

Although a five coach 180 only had about as many seats as a four coach 156 does - if I remember correctly the 180s weren't exactly "high density".

I brought up the 180s because of the 23m carriages and platform lengths not because of the number of seats. In fact a 4 car 156 has more seats than a 5 car 180 but the latter has more standing space through a longer train length and the 2+1 seating in carriage D. Unfortunately, with Northern losing some 156s it meant the 180 diagrams became 4 car class 150 diagrams so get varying seated capacity.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Yep, they certainly are. And I agree with you on 319/1s vice 319/0s, too: In fact, I think that the cab treatment of the 319s in general looks much smarter and tidier than many of the other mark 3 bodyshell derived MUs, such as the 317s and 150s (Both variants in both cases).

How many passengers actually see or notice the cab front!
Spend the money on the interior, and good quality equipment etc. On Northern it is a nice surprise when you get a seat with some padding left in it! Especially in the 142s!
Aircon would be nice!

 

[wellhouse]

There doesn't seem to be any consideration of toilet provision in a 3-car version, and the TSOL (Trailer Second Open Lavatory) is the vehicle that would be discarded.

Even a Pacer has a toilet, and I suspect the costs of installing toilets in a Driving vehicle would be considerable.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

That 'one route' equates to around half of the services set to get class 319s in the North at present and is also the route where there are currently rather cosy 4 car Sprinter services....

You sure? AFAIK Northern operate one service from Manchester to Blackpool each hour with one more to Preston (from Hazel Grove), however I believe there are to be three services per hour over the Moss (currently one goes to Warrington Bank Quay off-peak) and two per hour from Liverpool to Wigan, not forgetting the service from Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool each hour that might also benefit from electric trains, I make that a quarter of services.

....Chat Moss could get the 4 car option to leave the 3 car option and doubling up for Preston/Blackpool....

And give Northern (or whomever operates the service by then) another class of train to do maintenance on. A standard fleet of 319s would give more operational flexibility at no additional cost.

 

[jopsuk]

There doesn't seem to be any consideration of toilet provision in a 3-car version, and the TSOL (Trailer Second Open Lavatory) is the vehicle that would be discarded.

Even a Pacer has a toilet, and I suspect the costs of installing toilets in a Driving vehicle would be considerable.

It would be a similar cost to installing a loo in the driving trailer of the Class 320s, as is happening in the current refurbishment surely?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

There doesn't seem to be any consideration of toilet provision in a 3-car version, and the TSOL (Trailer Second Open Lavatory) is the vehicle that would be discarded....

It's an ATS (Auxiliary Trailer Standard), not a TSOL.

 

[RobShipway]

Hopefully after their refurbishment the 319's, will have better seating put in them, because the last time I went on a 319 from Brighton to Clapham it was the most uncomfotable seat and most uncomfortable ride I have ever had in travelling on trains over the last 43 years. Even the old class 110 diesel multiple unit seats where more comfortable.

 

[Beveridges]

And give Northern (or whomever operates the service by then) another class of train to do maintenance on. A standard fleet of 319s would give more operational flexibility at no additional cost.

Northern have always had the largest variety of classes out of the train operators so should be used to it. At least the 180s have gone in favour of more standard 150s which has made maintenance easier. Plus, when the electrics arrive, it will allow the complete withdrawal of the Pacers and the 153s - thats three different classes less to maintain.

 

[sprinterguy]

How many passengers actually see or notice the cab front!
Spend the money on the interior, and good quality equipment etc.

I agree. That is why I don't see the need to change the cab fronts on the 319s. But seeing as the aesthetics of the 319s were being discussed anyway, I thought that I'd throw in my opinion, too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's an ATS (Auxiliary Trailer Standard), not a TSOL.

Under what naming convention? "Auxiliary Trailer Standard" doesn't fit with what is generally regarded as the British Standard for vehicle classifications - TSOL does.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Plus, when the electrics arrive, it will allow the complete withdrawal of the Pacers and the 153s - thats three different classes less to maintain.

No it won't. No rolling stock has been earmarked for withdrawal once the North West electrification is up and running. I believe that the North West electrification will only release around 40 carriages from Northern - Not even enough to replace Newton Heath's allocation of class 142s which will probably be put to better use strengthening the remaining diesel services anyway.

 

[tbtc]

Northern have always had the largest variety of classes out of the train operators so should be used to it. At least the 180s have gone in favour of more standard 150s which has made maintenance easier. Plus, when the electrics arrive, it will allow the complete withdrawal of the Pacers and the 153s - thats three different classes less to maintain.

It won't allow anything like that - there may be a couple of dozen Northern DMUs freed up by electrification - based on current services - but there will be DMUs required to strengthen other services too - you'd need a lot more electrification for what you are talking about

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The NR CP5 plan (LNE p42) talks about early wiring of the Leeds-Selby/York sections ("Autumn 2014").
If this happens it means Northern would be able to start electric services well before TP can begin on the through route via Standedge.
They would need stock for it, of course.
Bradford-York/Selby trains perhaps?
EC might also be able to use the new wires.
They will have start pretty sharpish to finish inside two years.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Under what naming convention? "Auxiliary Trailer Standard" doesn't fit with what is generally regarded as the British Standard for vehicle classifications - TSOL does....

I only had training on them, I didn't designate the vehicle types.

 

[Lewisham2221]

It's an ATS (Auxiliary Trailer Standard), not a TSOL.

Whilst your TOC may choose refer to them as something different, the Porterbrook brochure (which this thread is discussing) refers to them as a TSOL.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TSOL - Trailer Standard Open Lavatory

 

[IanXC]

The NR CP5 plan (LNE p42) talks about early wiring of the Leeds-Selby/York sections ("Autumn 2014").
If this happens it means Northern would be able to start electric services well before TP can begin on the through route via Standedge.
They would need stock for it, of course.
Bradford-York/Selby trains perhaps?
EC might also be able to use the new wires.
They will have start pretty sharpish to finish inside two years.

And that does of course bring up the question of whether the Northern's eastern operations will have to contend with a third kind of EMU.

 

[W230]

Whilst your TOC may choose refer to them as something different, the Porterbrook brochure (which this thread is discussing) refers to them as a TSOL.

Interesting. I notice Porterbrook name them as DTSO(A) - MSO - TSOL - DTSO(B). We were told they're DTSO(A) - PMS - ATS - DTSO(B) on the traction course...

 

[pemma]

You sure? AFAIK Northern operate one service from Manchester to Blackpool each hour with one more to Preston (from Hazel Grove), however I believe there are to be three services per hour over the Moss (currently one goes to Warrington Bank Quay off-peak) and two per hour from Liverpool to Wigan, not forgetting the service from Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool each hour that might also benefit from electric trains, I make that a quarter of services.

Services on Bolton corridor that will switch to EMU:
* Hazel Grove to Preston
* Manchester Victoria to Blackpool
* Manchester Airport to Blackpool*

Services on Chat Moss that will switch to EMU:
* Liverpool to Wigan
* Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool
* Liverpool to Manchester/Stalybridge
* Liverpool to Manchester Airport*

* The future of these services in the long term is uncertain. Blackpool to Manchester Airport may or may not transfer to Northern and may or may not get 319s. Liverpool to Manchester Airport may not continue to operate on Chat Moss.

So that's 43% Bolton and 57% Chat Moss, so 'around half' isn't a bad approximation for what you earlier referred to as 'only one route.'

OK Liverpool to Manchester/Stalybridge is likely to be 2tph but there are plans for additional local services between Bolton and Manchester once the Scottish services are diverted away from Bolton, so there may be more on the Bolton corridor as well.

And give Northern (or whomever operates the service by then) another class of train to do maintenance on. A standard fleet of 319s would give more operational flexibility at no additional cost.

Note that the long term future of the 323s in the North West isn't confirmed. That was something that came up when TfGM looked in to funding the CCTV. The agreement drawn up is that the long term future of the 323s in Greater Manchester is not guaranteed but if they are replaced then the replacement EMUs will already have CCTV or have it fitted at no expense to TfGM.

 

[455driver]

We were told they're DTSO(A) - PMS - ATS - DTSO(B) on the traction course...

Bet thats a bitch at the wrong time of the month!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Services on Bolton corridor that will switch to EMU:
* Hazel Grove to Preston
* Manchester Victoria to Blackpool
* Manchester Airport to Blackpool*

Services on Chat Moss that will switch to EMU:
* Liverpool to Wigan
* Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool
* Liverpool to Manchester/Stalybridge
* Liverpool to Manchester Airport*

They willl also need to find trains for the new Piccadilly-Stalybridge service.
I don't know if that can be resourced from the existing EMU fleet or whether they will need fresh units.
The existing EMU diagrams elsewhere might well also be recast for better productivity.

 

[pemma]

They willl also need to find trains for the new Piccadilly-Stalybridge service.

??

Where does that come in?

From what I understand the plan is for the Huddersfield stopper to go to Piccadilly instead of Victoria but that will be post North TPE electrification. The stopper is expected to temporarily be axed once North TPE goes to 6tph around 2016 (2tph will run as semi-fasts serving the intermediate stations between Manchester and Huddersfield) but to be reinstated after North TPE electrification which should create an additional path through the trains having better acceleration.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Services on Bolton corridor that will switch to EMU:
* Hazel Grove to Preston
* Manchester Victoria to Blackpool
* Manchester Airport to Blackpool*

Services on Chat Moss that will switch to EMU:
* Liverpool to Wigan
* Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool
* Liverpool to Manchester/Stalybridge
* Liverpool to Manchester Airport*

* The future of these services in the long term is uncertain. Blackpool to Manchester Airport may or may not transfer to Northern and may or may not get 319s. Liverpool to Manchester Airport may not continue to operate on Chat Moss.

So that's 43% Bolton and 57% Chat Moss, so 'around half' isn't a bad approximation for what you earlier referred to as 'only one route.'

OK Liverpool to Manchester/Stalybridge is likely to be 2tph but there are plans for additional local services between Bolton and Manchester once the Scottish services are diverted away from Bolton, so there may be more on the Bolton corridor as well....

The extra Liverpool-Manchester/Stalybridge would replace the existing Liverpool-Warrington Bank Quay, AIUI, a service that would be completely under the wires anyway, and Liverpool-Wigan is 2tph in addition to the Blackpool run.

I don't really want to get bogged down in possibilities for other services because there have been rumours of trains to Wigan via the Chat Moss and rumours of the TPE Scotland services going back to the Bolton route when it is electrified, now as far as I know they are just rumours and hearsay, but what if.......

Based on the services you posted, I reckon the Bolton route is, at best, 37.5% of services (3 in 8), but could just as easily be 33% (3 in 9) or even 25% (2 in 8), in any case, it's not 50%.

 

[Nym]

They could of course significantly increase the amount of via Bolton EMUs by extending electrification from Lostock Junction to Wigan South Junctions and then one could send both Southport services via Atherton to give them more services, possibly cut Kirkby back and have all the via Bolton terminate at either North Western or Wallgate.

 

[pemma]

The extra Liverpool-Manchester/Stalybridge would replace the existing Liverpool-Warrington Bank Quay, AIUI, a service that would be completely under the wires anyway, and Liverpool-Wigan is 2tph in addition to the Blackpool run.

I don't really want to get bogged down in possibilities for other services because there have been rumours of trains to Wigan via the Chat Moss and rumours of the TPE Scotland services going back to the Bolton route when it is electrified, now as far as I know they are just rumours and hearsay, but what if.......

Based on the services you posted, I reckon the Bolton route is, at best, 37.5% of services (3 in 8), but could just as easily be 33% (3 in 9) or even 25% (2 in 8), in any case, it's not 50%.

I was really just getting at the point that your claim of 3 and 6 car EMU workings for 'only one route' not being a viable option.

Of course Liverpool to Wigan is a much shorter run than most of the other services so doesn't require so many units.

My understanding with relation to the Scotland route is some of local councillors and MPs want the route to be reverted to run via Bolton but it isn't likely to happen. TfGM and Network Rail have identified the Scottish services as carrying too much commuter traffic and want a new commuter service in it's place on the Bolton corridor. There is also a long term Network Rail plan for a Liverpool portion to be attached/removed from alternate Manchester Airport-Scotland services at Wigan, subject to enough demand being identified for a Liverpool-Scotland service.

You haven't stated how you would deal with the potential problem of getting too many passengers for a 4 car 319 on some services and not having enough paths for more services or long enough platforms for 8 car workings.

Doubled up 323s (if they remain in the North West) would be 138m long compared to 120m for a potential 6 car 319, so more likely to cause platform issues.

The only other option I can think of is the busiest workings would have to be 6 car 150 workings on fully electrified services, which partly defeats the point of the electrification work!