• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

If 175s end up at Northern..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
I was thinking about how Northern could allocate the 27 175s if they end up there in a year or two as has been speculated on.

The 11 two-coach units, 10 in service each day:

2 units doubled up on a Chester via Northwich diagram.
6 units to run 3 diagrams doubled up on Manchester Vic-Barrow/Windermere (moved away from Man Airport as expected)
2 units doubled up on a Rochdale-Clitheroe diagram.

The 16 three-carriage units, 14 in service each day:

3 units for the remaining Manchester-Cumbria diagrams.
2 units for the remaining Rochdale-Clitheroe diagrams.
2 units for the remaining Chester via Northwich diagrams.
2 units for Rochdale-Blackburn.
3 units for Rochdale-Southport via Atherton
2 units for Hope Valley stoppers

How do these allocations look? It keeps the units in a reasonably confined operating area, centred in Manchester, much of it including routes they were cleared for when new. So it avoids needing to train lots of different depots how to work them, not that much route clearing needed and avoids the need for loads of different overnight stabling depots.
This would provide improved capacity on many of the routes above, without being overkill and an improved passenger experience on routes where they would be replacing Sprinters.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,097
I was thinking about how Northern could allocate the 27 175s if they end up there in a year or two as has been speculated on.

The 11 two-coach units, 10 in service each day:

2 units doubled up on a Chester via Northwich diagram.
6 units to run 3 diagrams doubled up on Manchester Vic-Barrow/Windermere (moved away from Man Airport as expected)
2 units doubled up on a Rochdale-Clitheroe diagram.

The 16 three-carriage units, 14 in service each day:

3 units for the remaining Manchester-Cumbria diagrams.
2 units for the remaining Rochdale-Clitheroe diagrams.
2 units for the remaining Chester via Northwich diagrams.
2 units for Rochdale-Blackburn.
3 units for Rochdale-Southport via Atherton
2 units for Hope Valley stoppers

How do these allocations look? It keeps the units in a reasonably confined operating area, centred in Manchester, much of it including routes they were cleared for when new. So it avoids needing to train lots of different depots how to work them, not that much route clearing needed and avoids the need for loads of different overnight stabling depots.
This would provide improved capacity on many off the routes above, without being overkill and an improved passenger experience on routes where they would be replacing Sprinters.
Whilst you say it would avoid needing to train lots of different depots to work them the routes you are suggesting are worked by Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Victoria, Buxton, Liverpool, Blackburn, Wigan, Blackpool and Barrow crews that's quite a lot drivers and guards to train.

I would suggest that Northern would be reluctant to replace the 195s on the Barrow and Windermere routes given the money being spent on having CAF trained fitters up at Barrow and the bad PR replacing new trains with nearly 20 year old ones.

I am also a bit confused at where your information has come from about Barrow/Windermeres expected swapping to Victoria and take it this is speculation? Northern planning department certainly don't know anything about this nor about any proposed Rochdale to Southport route. Whilst it is likely that routes will be taken away from the Castlefield corridor before 175s leave TFW. My contact at Northern believes it to be much more likely to be TFW services and/or Chat Moss stoppers than Cumbria services but nothing has been decided.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
19,034
if 175s transferred to Northern, would this then make the 769s surplus to requirements?
Surely the bottom of the cascade would be 150s rather than 769s (assuming 153s have already been dispensed of by the time the 175s are available)?
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,870
Location
Glasgow
if 175s transferred to Northern, would this then make the 769s surplus to requirements?
Ideally it would, I suspect most travellers would prefer a 175's travelling environment excepting where they replaced a 769 with 2-car and then there is the lack of electric operation with 175s of course that probably won't go down well with the bi-mode proponents.

I would expect 175s to replace the Sprinters though rather than the 769s
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,097
if 175s transferred to Northern, would this then make the 769s surplus to requirements?
I get the impression since the change of management at Northern that they would quite happily not take the 769s due to the delays in getting them in service and predicted unreliability. It's the DFT that's pushing Northern to use them.
 

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
5,932
Location
Lancashire
I get the impression since the change of management at Northern that they would quite happily not take the 769s due to the delays in getting them in service and predicted unreliability. It's the DFT that's pushing Northern to use them.
Indeed, it’s taking far less time to introduce the 195 & 331 fleets versus the 769s
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,097
I'm not sure how many units are needed to work services in the North East but if their maintenance facilities could be moved from Chester and assuming they could be cleared for the routes I think they would be an ideal stand alone fleet with the 156s and 158s used to strengthen services elsewhere.
 

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
5,932
Location
Lancashire
Instead of 195s being cascaded onto the Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield stoppers and the Manchester Piccadilly to Chester via Northwich services, maybe 175s would be more appropriate
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,392
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Instead of 195s being cascaded onto the Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield stoppers and the Manchester Piccadilly to Chester via Northwich services, maybe 175s would be more appropriate

195s are perfect for stopping services, having EMU like performance they can bring improved timetables (would be great to allocate them all to Manchester area local services and improve those no end, like the 172s did for the Snow Hill lines). 175s would do well to be put on the express routes that 195s are used on now - which is what they did when built!
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,411
I get the impression since the change of management at Northern that they would quite happily not take the 769s due to the delays in getting them in service and predicted unreliability. It's the DFT that's pushing Northern to use them.
That might explain why Northern are so slow at getting them into service. If management aren’t keen, then they’ll be dragging their heels with their introduction. Is this the real reason they’re later than TfW?
 

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
5,932
Location
Lancashire
195s are perfect for stopping services, having EMU like performance they can bring improved timetables. 175s would do well to be put on the express routes that 195s are used on now - which is what they did when built!
So e.g. Leeds to Nottingham and Leeds to Manchester Victoria services
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
If that's the case with 769s, then 175s could be used for Alderley Edge-Southport services, meaning 195s could stay on the Hope Valley and some of the Cumbria services.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,503
That might explain why Northern are so slow at getting them into service. If management aren’t keen, then they’ll be dragging their heels with their introduction. Is this the real reason they’re later than TfW?
There's also the small union issue which TfW has avoided by speccing cab air con from the beginning.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,411
There's also the small union issue which TfW has avoided by speccing cab air con from the beginning.
Which is another management failure, rather than an issue with the train.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
I was thinking about how Northern could allocate the 27 175s if they end up there in a year or two as has been speculated on.

The 11 two-coach units, 10 in service each day:

2 units doubled up on a Chester via Northwich diagram.


The 16 three-carriage units, 14 in service each day:

2 units for the remaining Chester via Northwich diagrams.

Firstly, I would hope in a couple of years time the Mid-Cheshire service is not just an hourly service even at off-peak times. However, if that is the case would you propose Sprinters still run the peak time extras?

Also would it depend on where they are based? If they remain based at Chester, would that not mean any morning peak extras on the Mid-Cheshire would be ideal for moving trains between Chester and Greater Manchester for later services starting in Greater Manchester?

Although, based on the pre-COVID timetable and loadings 2 x 3 car workings and 2 x 4 car workings would work well for weekday services. The one thing to consider though is when there's sport events on, whether it's Chester Races, Man United games or international cricket at Old Trafford, there can be rammed 4 car trains currently and pre-COVID on some Saturdays all Mid-Cheshire services were 4 cars.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Northern already have too many types of DMU IMHO so if they were to take the 175s then I think the best option would be to do what Serco Abellio Northern did and focus certain types in certain areas.

That version of the franchise had the 144/155/158s in "Yorkshire" and the 156s in "Lancashire" (with the 142s/ 150s/ 153s spread around a little more), which seemed a more efficient way of doing things.

The 175s would be fine on the "semi fast" routes like the quicker Calder Valley runs, the Lincoln - Sheffield - Leeds - Sheffield - Nottingham diagrams and the Sheffield - Hulls, maybe the S&C too (although that only needs about three diagrams?). Put the 195s on routes that they'd be better suited to (e.g. Harrogate stoppers), since they are just a posh 150.

However that brings about two further problems:

1. What is the point of the 170s (if you are putting 175s on faster services), since 170s aren't great at stoppers. Maybe part of the deal ought to be Northern getting the 27 "Welsh" 175s and then cascading their 16 Turbostar to EMR/ XC (who both have a meagre fleet of 170s).

2. What do you do about the fact that the franchise promised shiny new 175s across most towns/cities? All those local "Stakeholders" will be furious (or at least pretend to be furious for the sake of getting headlines in the local press). I'd prefer that units were focussed on certain depots, since it makes things a lot simpler operationally/ training/ maintenance etc, but we'd have to deal with the reality that Arriva's box ticking franchise win ensured that the nice new trains were spread as thinly as possible so that everywhere large felt like it was getting new trains.

(or, as a curveball suggestion, would 27 DMUs be enough for the Heaton routes - i.e. everything from Chathill - Whitby - Bishop Auckland - Carlisle?)
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
I was thinking about how Northern could allocate the 27 175s if they end up there in a year or two as has been speculated on.

The 11 two-coach units, 10 in service each day:

2 units doubled up on a Chester via Northwich diagram.
6 units to run 3 diagrams doubled up on Manchester Vic-Barrow/Windermere (moved away from Man Airport as expected)
2 units doubled up on a Rochdale-Clitheroe diagram.

The 16 three-carriage units, 14 in service each day:

3 units for the remaining Manchester-Cumbria diagrams.
2 units for the remaining Rochdale-Clitheroe diagrams.
2 units for the remaining Chester via Northwich diagrams.
2 units for Rochdale-Blackburn.
3 units for Rochdale-Southport via Atherton
2 units for Hope Valley stoppers

How do these allocations look? It keeps the units in a reasonably confined operating area, centred in Manchester, much of it including routes they were cleared for when new. So it avoids needing to train lots of different depots how to work them, not that much route clearing needed and avoids the need for loads of different overnight stabling depots.
This would provide improved capacity on many of the routes above, without being overkill and an improved passenger experience on routes where they would be replacing Sprinters.
Makes sense considering the routes they are/were cleared for and who runs Longsight/MID. Except, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Mid-Cheshire have 4 diagrams?
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
2. What do you do about the fact that the franchise promised shiny new 175s across most towns/cities? All those local "Stakeholders" will be furious (or at least pretend to be furious for the sake of getting headlines in the local press). I'd prefer that units were focussed on certain depots, since it makes things a lot simpler operationally/ training/ maintenance etc, but we'd have to deal with the reality that Arriva's box ticking franchise win ensured that the nice new trains were spread as thinly as possible so that everywhere large felt like it was getting new trains.

I think you mean 195s there and I think it could be an issue for the Cumbria services. Didn't they get the 175s when brand new, so it would be like the Welsh franchise doesn't want the trains you originally had anymore as they have brand new ones now, so you can have them back! I definitely can't see that going down well, especially not with Tim Farron.

Makes sense considering the routes they are/were cleared for and who runs Longsight/MID. Except, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Mid-Cheshire have 4 diagrams?

Yes it does. 3 diagrams would mean a train has to depart Chester around 10 minutes before it arrives! I misread the post as 2 x 4 car diagrams, which would actually work well due to there being services in both directions which get very crowded in the morning and late afternoon/evening.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Yes it does. 3 diagrams would mean a train has to depart Chester around 10 minutes before it arrives! I misread the post as 2 x 4 car diagrams, which would actually work well due to there being services in both directions which get very crowded in the morning and late afternoon/evening.
That was me reading wrong :lol:. 2x3 car, 2x2 2 car units can get confusing pretty quickly. I say once the semi fasts finally start, (which would only require 3 diagrams if my maths is correct) make those 175 diagrams and make the 3 open stopping diagrams Sprinters with one remaining as a 175 (preferably a 2x2 diagram).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,392
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If that's the case with 769s, then 175s could be used for Alderley Edge-Southport services, meaning 195s could stay on the Hope Valley and some of the Cumbria services.

You don't want end-doored stock running over Castlefield. What you could do is reshuffle things to get 195s or 170s on the Southports, though.
 

Llandudno

Established Member
Joined
25 Dec 2014
Messages
2,245
Firstly, I would hope in a couple of years time the Mid-Cheshire service is not just an hourly service even at off-peak times. However, if that is the case would you propose Sprinters still run the peak time extras?

Also would it depend on where they are based? If they remain based at Chester, would that not mean any morning peak extras on the Mid-Cheshire would be ideal for moving trains between Chester and Greater Manchester for later services starting in Greater Manchester?

Although, based on the pre-COVID timetable and loadings 2 x 3 car workings and 2 x 4 car workings would work well for weekday services. The one thing to consider though is when there's sport events on, whether it's Chester Races, Man United games or international cricket at Old Trafford, there can be rammed 4 car trains currently and pre-COVID on some Saturdays all Mid-Cheshire services were 4 cars.
Even worse when Man U or England cricket play on Sundays at Old Trafford, the mid Cheshire line only runs every 2 hours and regularly leaves passengers behind from Knutsford and further eastern stations towards Altrincham
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,683
Location
Northern England
Personally I would put the 175s on a sort of triangle of services between Manchester, Leeds and the Lakes. These are:
  • (Manchester) - Lancaster - Barrow
  • (Manchester - Lancaster) - Oxenholme - Windermere
  • Settle - Carlisle (- Skipton - Leeds)
  • Lancaster - Morecambe ( - Heysham)
  • The Calder Valley.
I'm not sure if this is too many diagrams for the 175s or not, however. But it does provide reasonable opportunities to swap units round using the diagrams, meaning that you could have one depot equipped to maintain them and just ensure each of them visits the appropriate depot enough times in a month, like what ATW does with Chester.

To me, it seems silly to be putting 175s - which are decidedly long-distance units - on what are, comparatively, commuter stoppers such as Manchester-Southport, Chester via Northwich, and the Hope Valley. It's worth nothing also that those services get busy enough to need 1/3-2/3 doors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top