Could the Class 397 be the perfect train for the Long-Distance London NorthWestern Railway services? (+my ideas for the future of LNWR)

[37057]

Introduction of the trains in the north have been quite troublesome. I know people who went to work for CAF and the impression I get is that it's quite a poor show. It seems to be industry wide (at least where I am) that anyone who mentions CAF also breaks down it's meaning as above!

 

[tetudo boy]

Introduction of the trains in the north have been quite troublesome. I know people who went to work for CAF and the impression I get is that it's quite a poor show. It seems to be industry wide (at least where I am) that anyone who mentions CAF also breaks down it's meaning as above!

So CAF is bad at trying to make trains?

 

[Energy]

So CAF is bad at trying to make trains?

Not really, CAF are just cheaper but you get what you pay for in terms of quality

 

[tetudo boy]

Not really, CAF are just cheaper but you get what you pay for in terms of quality

I find CAF's trains to be quite good. Still, they're quite new to the UK market (If you don't include the 332 and 333). Making their trains cheaper is quite good.

 

[Energy]

I find CAF's trains to be quite good. Still, their quite new to the UK market (If you don't include the 332 and 333). Making their trains cheaper is quite good.

It is good for some operators where it is either cascaded stock or CAF due to limits in how much could be spent on rolling stock

 

[tetudo boy]

Any other problems?

 

[Energy]

Any other problems?

Main is that they would be a very small fleet, it would make more sense to use the 730s they already have on order. 397s aren't similar to anything apart from the 196s which still have many different components (doors, and mainly the 196 has a diesel engine not any electric traction equipment)

 

[tetudo boy]

Main is that they would be a very small fleet, it would make more sense to use the 730s they already have on order. 397s aren't similar to anything apart from the 196s which still have many different components (doors, and mainly the 196 has a diesel engine not any electric traction equipment)

If I remember correctly, the class 730 was supposed to serve Mid/low-distance stopping services. The class 397 on LNWR services will serve Long-distance services with fewer stops, so it makes more sense to use the class 397.

 

[Energy]

If I remember correctly, the class 730 was supposed to serve Mid/low-distance stopping services. The class 397 on LNWR services will serve Long-distance services with fewer stops, so it makes more sense to use the class 397.

They have ordered 16 for long distance services.

 

[tetudo boy]

They have ordered 16 for long distance services.

Wait, they did?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Haven't read the thread in full, but suffice to say that the units ordered have been deliberately ordered as a fusion of long-distance needs (speed, coach interior etc. hence a sub-class) and short-distance needs (high loads from MKC and Northampton etc).

 

[tetudo boy]

Haven't read the thread in full, but suffice to say that the units ordered have been deliberately ordered as a fusion of long-distance needs (speed, coach interior etc. hence a sub-class) and short-distance needs (high loads from MKC and Northampton etc).

I feel like Class 730's should be put to mid/short-distance services while 397's should be used on longer-distance services. That's what I'm trying to aim for.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I feel like Class 730's should be put to mid/short-distance services while 397's should be used on longer-distance services. That's what I'm trying to aim for.

But they won't be good people-movers at peak time for stations where the Crewe and fast Birmingham sort of trains make extra calls. People used to bemoan the idea of 350s between Preston and Scotland but I always found them extremely pleasant - the same applies here. Yes, it's technically a commuter train but it can be specified internally to be very fit for the Crewe stopping service where, quite honestly, most journeys are no more than about 80 minutes and if you are using it over longer distances you aren't paying as much as on a comparable Intercity service on the same route so you shouldn't necessarily have the amenities.

 

[tetudo boy]

But they won't be good people-movers at peak time for stations where the Crewe and fast Birmingham sort of trains make extra calls. People used to bemoan the idea of 350s between Preston and Scotland but I always found them extremely pleasant - the same applies here. Yes, it's technically a commuter train but it can be specified internally to be very fit for the Crewe stopping service where, quite honestly, most journeys are no more than about 80 minutes and if you are using it over longer distances you aren't paying as much as on a comparable Intercity service on the same route so you shouldn't necessarily have the amenities.

I originally had the idea of LNWR ordering six-car set's to make up for the congestion. Also, I wasn't only going to have it on the Trent Valley stopper service I was also going to have it on any service via Birmingham where it has fewer stops (Yes, there isn't one but I thought of one on my initial plan). I also said that I was going to extend some services so that class 397 workings make more sense and makes for less congestion and transfers.

 

[Energy]

I originally had the idea of LNWR ordering six-car set's to make up for the congestion. Also, I wasn't only going to have it on the Trent Valley stopper service I was also going to have it on any service via Birmingham where it has fewer stops (Yes, there isn't one but I thought of one on my initial plan). I also said that I was going to extend some services so that class 397 workings make more sense and makes for less congestion and transfers.

You would still have a small fleet of 397s which is not ideal for driver training, maintanence etc. It just makes more sense for 730s.

 

[Neptune]

There seems to be a movement on here that suggest any journey over an hour needs to have a train with a totally inconvenient end door arrangement.

The only trains to me which justify end doors are intercity services with limited stops and longer dwell times or rural routes such as the S&C or West Highland/Far North/Kyle lines which can again accommodate dwell times without affecting other trains.

Doors at thirds are not solely for commuter trains. This door arrangement should to me be a standard for anything other than intercity and rural services due to their quicker dwell time potential due to the better position of doors which are also much wider. How the interior is configured would be dependent on the route the trains work.

The 185’s for example have an excellent interior which is much better than some intercity trains.

If the 730’s for the longer distance LNWR routes have good enough seating for long distance journeys but with enough doorway space for commuters as the trains near the large conurbations then they will be vastly superior to the 397’s on their intended routes.

 

[Energy]

There seems to be a movement on here that suggest any journey over an hour needs to have a train with a totally inconvenient end door arrangement.

The only trains to me which justify end doors are intercity services with limited stops and longer dwell times or rural routes such as the S&C or West Highland/Far North/Kyle lines which can again accommodate dwell times without affecting other trains.

Doors at thirds are not solely for commuter trains. This door arrangement should to me be a standard for anything other than intercity and rural services due to their quicker dwell time potential due to the better position of doors which are also much wider. How the interior is configured would be dependent on the route the trains work.

The 185’s for example have an excellent interior which is much better than some intercity trains.

If the 730’s for the longer distance LNWR routes have good enough seating for long distance journeys but with enough doorway space for commuters as the trains near the large conurbations then they will be vastly superior to the 397’s on their intended routes.

I agree, end doors just increase loading times and aren't suited to the services LNWR run.

 

[tetudo boy]

I agree, end doors just increase loading times and aren't suited to the services LNWR run.

Then what was the change from a class 350 to a class 397 like on the Manchester to Scotland route like? Was it successful?

 

[D365]

Then what was the change from a class 350 to a class 397 like on the Manchester to Scotland route like? Was it successful?

The TPE Class 350s were always only intended as a temporary measure, so it's worth bearing that in mind.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The TPE Class 350s were always only intended as a temporary measure, so it's worth bearing that in mind.

But not at all bad. The 8 car formations with good internals and facilities were very welcome considering the loadings on some trains!

 

[Neptune]

Then what was the change from a class 350 to a class 397 like on the Manchester to Scotland route like? Was it successful?

The 350/4’s were always intended for London Midland (subsequently LNWR) until the new TPE franchise sought a more permanent solution.

 

[D365]

But not at all bad. The 8 car formations with good internals and facilities were very welcome considering the loadings on some trains!

Not saying it was a bad thing, just that it was easiest for TPE to team up with London Midland since they both needed small orders at the time. As Neptune points out above, it also meant that the Class 350/4s would end up with a more permanent home.

My point being that TPE's transition to Class 397s is very different to LNWR's situation as a long term user of Class 350s.

 

[tetudo boy]

Not saying it was a bad thing, just that it was easiest for TPE to team up with London Midland since they both needed small orders at the time. As Neptune points out above, it also meant that the Class 350/4s would end up with a more permanent home.

My point being that TPE's transition to Class 397s is very different to LNWR's situation as a long term user of Class 350s.

So TPE could Sub-lease the class 397 if they went to LNWR (like what they did with the class 350/4)or is it easier to just let LNWR have the rights to them?

 

[Energy]

So TPE could Sub-lease the class 397 if they went to LNWR (like what they did with the class 350/4)or is it easier to just let LNWR have the rights to them?

Why would they do this instead of letting TPE continue to have the 397s they already have?

 

[tetudo boy]

Why would they do this instead of letting TPE continue to have the 397s they already have?

No, what I mean is if CAF built a few more set's for LNWR would it be better for TPE to initially order them and sub-lease them to LNWR or let LNWR just have them to their selves. Since TPE has more experience with class 397 I thought sub-leasing was a good idea.