Considerations around further electrification in the North

[Jozhua]

So Northern will run diesel multiple units - which they are very short of - under the wires for hundreds of miles a day, in the midst of a climate emergency, just because the management happen to dislike the alternative.

Surely there must be a better reason than that, even if it's not been given publicly?

So Northern will run diesel multiple units - which they are very short of - under the wires for hundreds of miles a day, in the midst of a climate emergency, just because the government happen to dislike funding 15 miles of electrification.

It also creates a small subfleet of battery EMUs which is much less preferable than just electrifying it, its only 15 miles long meanwhile NR have hired Atkins (engineering and design company) to bring down the cost of electrification.

Arriva had planned for 16 more 2 car 170 like DMUs but this never happened.

I doubt we will see many new 195s, the better way is to electrify most routes and use 195s and 170s were it would cost too much till the end of the train's life.

Yes, batteries are also heavy, expensive and don't have amazing longevity. And if you have different operational/maintainance procedures, this adds a lot of cost. Small sub-fleets never really go amazingly. Probably part of the issue with the 180's is just the lack of resource and difficulty finding parts for such a small fleet.

 

[Speed43125]

SNIP - Though if any additional driving cars were needed, they ought to be gangwayed just as the originals should have been.

I suspect that boat has sailed. The 195s aren't able to work in multiple with 196/197s because the latter have moved the electrical connectors to below the physical coupling, rather than above as on the 195s. Northern are effectively stuck with non-gangwayed civities, seemingly due to the very low spec order under previous running of the franchise.

 

[37424]

There shouldn't really be anymore cascades in of 15x stock we should getting to the stage where we should look at replacing these things, and any cascades in will be because the franchise that has released them has replaced them with newer DMU's in the case of Ex Anglia 156's replaced by newer trains at 2 franchises. I also hope that northern doesn't get considered for more of the 769 concoctions either.

 

[py_megapixel]

So Northern will run diesel multiple units - which they are very short of - under the wires for hundreds of miles a day, in the midst of a climate emergency, just because the government happen to dislike funding 15 miles of electrification.

Well you get my point. Whatever the solution is, the problem needs to be solved. It's unacceptable that there is so much DMU working under the wires on Northern at the moment.

 

[37424]

Well you get my point. Whatever the solution is, the problem needs to be solved. It's unacceptable that there is so much DMU working under the wires on Northern at the moment.

Why do people get so excited about the Windermere branch its ridiculous, we are talking about 4 trains a day each way operated to Manchester and who knows in any review of the number of trains through Castlefield they might get cut back anyway.

XC do far more Diesel under the wires running with high powered Diesel trains.

 

[py_megapixel]

Why do people get so excited about the Windermere branch its ridiculous, we are talking about 4 trains a day each way operated to Manchester and who knows in any review of the number of trains through Castlefield they might get cut back anyway.

XC do far more Diesel under the wires running with high powered Diesel trains.

But to avoid diesel under the wires on XC you need to electrify hundreds of miles down the south west of the country and/or order dozens of new trains.

To avoid diesel under the wires for Windermere you need to electrify 15 miles of single track and adjust the diagrams a bit.

Can you see my point?

 

[37424]

But to avoid diesel under the wires on XC you need to electrify hundreds of miles down the south west of the country and/or order dozens of new trains.

To avoid diesel under the wires for Windermere you need to electrify 15 miles of single track and adjust the diagrams a bit.

Can you see my point?

Not really because the amount of Diesel under the wires is irrelevent in the grand scheme of things, as is the Windermere branch when compared to electrification of more major routes, yes you can use the argument well it wont cost much to do it it terms of electrification costs but then you could alternatively put that money, time and resources towards some other scheme.

 

[D365]

Given the current excess of EMUs (Northern aren’t supposed to get all of the 331s), I’ll just assume that they’re only getting more 195s, with the possible exception of battery trailers.

Really? Where else would the Class 331s be going?

 

[py_megapixel]

Not really because the amount of Diesel under the wires is irrelevent in the grand scheme of things,

This part contradicts what you said a few posts ago about a better focus being eliminating diesel under the wires on XC, but anyway...

as is the Windermere branch when compared to electrification of more major routes

The Windermere line is a branch of the West Coast Mainline, one of the most major routes, and a route where slow diesels taking up paths is a bad thing.

To be honest if it was me I'd probably scrap the extensions to Manchester, and retime all services to connect with TPE into Manchester instead. But that's out of the scope of this thread.

However it's insane to me that the branches weren't done with the rest of the line in the 1960s...

 

[Neptune]

Given the current excess of EMUs (Northern aren’t supposed to get all of the 331s), I’ll just assume that they’re only getting more 195s, with the possible exception of battery trailers.

Northern (Arriva) ordered all of the 331’s for themselves, nobody else, and they’ve now got them all. Where, prey tell, did you think they were going?

 

[Halish Railway]

Really? Where else would the Class 331s be going?

Northern (Arriva) ordered all of the 331’s for themselves, nobody else, and they’ve now got them all. Where, prey tell, did you think they were going?

Sorry, my mistake - I should of written 323s instead. I’ve corrected it now.

 

[YorksLad12]

Also, I’d get rid of the idiotic arrangement in which two-car trains operate the Hallam line express services, though I don’t think that’s possible with the lack of space on platform 17, though they might move these trains on to another platform to accommodate the increase in frequency of the Hallam line stopping trains.

Aye. Peak and weekends (which is when I've done Leeds to Sheffield or Nottingham in the past) need three carriages. The only way to do that would be to bring back the much-shorter Pacers for the stopping services if you wanted to use P17 - or move either stoppers or semi-fasts to 16 (which would be difficult with all of the TPE services to squeeze in on 15 & 16 (and 12).

 

[NoMorePacers]

When I did one of those services back when 158s were the sole traction on them it was full and standing the whole way from Sheffield to Leeds, so I'd dread to think what it's like on a 2 car 195 with less seating capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I did one of those services back when 158s were the sole traction on them it was full and standing the whole way from Sheffield to Leeds, so I'd dread to think what it's like on a 2 car 195 with less seating capacity.

They're better provided for for standing so it's less unpleasant, but this really just demonstrates that there is no place for 2-car DMUs other than on tiny branch lines.

 

[py_megapixel]

When I did one of those services back when 158s were the sole traction on them it was full and standing the whole way from Sheffield to Leeds, so I'd dread to think what it's like on a 2 car 195 with less seating capacity.

Less crowded but also less comfortable probably: more standing room

 

[Neptune]

They're better provided for for standing so it's less unpleasant, but this really just demonstrates that there is no place for 2-car DMUs other than on tiny branch lines.

It doesn’t really encourage people to travel. I know that people don’t have a right to a seat but I’ve worked Leeds - Notts late morning in winter and it’s been standing room only on sections of the route. At that time of day people expect a seat and quite rightly. The order should have been for 3 and 4 car DMU’s the same as the 331’s.

I never had that problem with a 2 car 158 with a similar load.

 

[Nymanic]

I had the (mis)fortune of travelling Leeds-Sheffield on a 195/0 back in February (on a Sat afternoon). It was full with a couple of "standees" on departure, and only got busier en route.

The combination of questionable ride quality and the lack of grab handles meant that most "standees" opted to sit on the floor by the doors. What's the point of large vestibules if they're not safe to stand in unless there's a crush load?

It's pretty dire that one platform at Leeds can dictate capacity limits for the full length of the Sheffield - Leeds - Nottingham route. I sincerely hope there are capacity increases in the coming years.

 

[Neptune]

If only the plans to connect platform 13 & 14 into a 7th through road had come to fruition to free up platform 16. Platform 11 & 12 are flexible enough to take the terminating services that currently use Platform 13 thanks to the through road allowing trains around them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much as I'm opposed to overdoing "everywhere on Northern to everywhere else once an hour" for the sake of it, is there nothing on the other side of Leeds that this service can be connected to to enable it to use a through platform and thus run as 3 or 4-car as seems to be needed?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

To avoid diesel under the wires for Windermere you need to electrify 15 miles of single track and adjust the diagrams a bit.
Can you see my point?

Only 10 miles actually.
Nothing wrong (temporarily) with hourly 331s to Oxenholme and a linked 195 shuttle on the branch, maybe with through 195s in the (Windermere) peak.
Northern "not wanting" battery or 769 conversions doesn't count, as DfT are funding it anyway.

 

[D6975]

Only 10 miles actually.
Nothing wrong (temporarily) with hourly 331s to Oxenholme and a linked 195 shuttle on the branch, maybe with through 195s in the (Windermere) peak.
Northern "not wanting" battery or 769 conversions doesn't count, as DfT are funding it anyway.

I agree with this completely. Some people get obsessed with offering through services, but this is a good solution. The transfer would be same-platform and easily done. Peak time the 195 would work through to Manchester with a replacement 195 coming up on the next one.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I agree with this completely. Some people get obsessed with offering through services, but this is a good solution. The transfer would be same-platform and easily done. Peak time the 195 would work through to Manchester with a replacement 195 coming up on the next one.

Does the signalling and length of the branch platform at Oxenholme allow for dual occupancy? So a 331 could stop at the Up end and a 195 at the Windermere end?

 

[Barnsley]

The Leeds to Nottingham’s, when they run are a joke, when I’m waiting at Barnsley, there is a groan when a 2 car 195 turns up, because you know you arent getting a seat, in the current timetable, with stoppers only, one diagram is a single 158, one is a 150, the other is a 2-car 195, the space is there to extend P17 at Leeds aswell

 

[Neptune]

the space is there to extend P17 at Leeds aswell

At great cost. It’s not just a case of extending the platform. It would require moving the starter signal which also requires extending the chord potentially affecting the main westbound gantry.

The end of 17 is also the main evacuation route on the south side of the station.

 

[YorksLad12]

If only the plans to connect platform 13 & 14 into a 7th through road had come to fruition to free up platform 16. Platform 11 & 12 are flexible enough to take the terminating services that currently use Platform 13 thanks to the through road allowing trains around them.

Pretty sure you can't get three carriages into 14, so combining 13 & 14 and using 16A and 16B as the stopping points for services (while retaining it as a through platform) makes sense. But the combined 13 & 14 would make 15 a bit narrow, and there the access at either end to work out as well.

Much as I'm opposed to overdoing "everywhere on Northern to everywhere else once an hour" for the sake of it, is there nothing on the other side of Leeds that this service can be connected to to enable it to use a through platform and thus run as 3 or 4-car as seems to be needed?

Only the Leeds-York shuttle but that runs hourly, I guess. There's four arrivals per hour at 17 normally, you'd want to extend two of those across. *cough* Leeds Parkway *cough*

The Leeds to Nottingham’s, when they run are a joke, when I’m waiting at Barnsley, there is a groan when a 2 car 195 turns up, because you know you arent getting a seat, in the current timetable, with stoppers only, one diagram is a single 158, one is a 150, the other is a 2-car 195, the space is there to extend P17 at Leeds aswell

"Happy" days of catching the train home from Sheffield on platform 1A. Walking down to the end so I'd be in the right spot for the doors. Looking down the track, realising it was a 150 and swiftly walking 20 paces back towards the entrance...

At great cost. It’s not just a case of extending the platform. It would require moving the starter signal which also requires extending the chord potentially affecting the main westbound gantry.

The end of 17 is also the main evacuation route on the south side of the station.

Is it? I though that that was now the emergency exit to the Southern Entrance.

 

[Neptune]

Pretty sure you can't get three carriages into 14, so combining 13 & 14 and using 16A and 16B as the stopping points for services (while retaining it as a through platform) makes sense. But the combined 13 & 14 would make 15 a bit narrow, and there the access at either end to work out as well.




Is it? I though that that was now the emergency exit to the Southern Entrance.

14 will nicely take a 170 (I’ve taken many in there). It’s irrelevant now as they’re not doing it.

The refuge area off 17 is still for use and included in the regular H&S tours (what if you can’t reach the southern entrance and you’re on 17a and need to evacuate).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have read in a few places that even the DafT think the best solution for the Windermere branch is stringing up the wires. I will try and find a reference/quote.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have read in a few places that even the DafT think the best solution for the Windermere branch is stringing up the wires. I will try and find a reference/quote.

Of course it is It's just about the cheapest, simplest electrification project imaginable.

 

[py_megapixel]

Of course it is It's just about the cheapest, simplest electrification project imaginable.

Yes, it is a cheap, simple project* which would eliminate hundreds of miles of diesel working and free up much needed DMUs. It is, therefore, almost certain the that the DfT will find a trivial reason to refuse to fund it

[*] there is the caveat that the National Park Authority were unhappy with plans for OHLE, claiming that it would spoil the appearance of the national park.

 

[Energy]

[*] there is the caveat that the National Park Authority were unhappy with plans for OHLE, claiming that it would spoil the appearance of the national park.

You can get somewhat nice looking electrification, reducing diesel emissions is more important than slightly affecting the beauty of the environment in my opinion.