Lancashire Electrification (the facts and figures)

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by tbtc, 20 Oct 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,163
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Assuming the Lancashire electrification happens and it is for the lines between Manchester Piccadilly and Blackpool North (via Bolton and Preston), from Manchester Piccadilly to LIverpool Lime Street (via Eccles) and from Liverpool to Wigan (via St Helens).

    As far as we know there are no plans to extend wires to Windermere, Barrow or Southport via Wigan Wallgate.

    *so*, assuming all services remain the same (they won’t, of course, but assuming for now...) with the exception of Manchester Airport - Barrow (which becomes a Northern run Lancaster - Barrow service integrated with the existing Carlisle - Barrow - Lancaster service) and the Windermere line (which becomes a self contained shuttle run by Northern)...

    ...the DMUs saved are as follows:

    NORTHERN

    Liverpool to Blackpool - hourly service - Three hour round trip = three units

    Liverpool to Wigan - half hourly service - Two hour round trip = four units

    Manchester Victoria - Blackpool - hourly service four hour round trip - four units

    Hazel Grove - Preston - hourly service - three hour round trip = three units

    Liverpool to Manchester Airport - hourly service - Three hour round trip = three units

    Liverpool to Manchester Victoria - hourly service - Two hour round trip = two units

    Liverpool to Warrington Bank Quay - hourly service - Two hour round trip = two units

    TRANSPENNINE

    Fifteen units (Manchester Airport to Blackpool/ Barrow/ Windermere/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh, interworked)

    ...BUT, Lancaster to Barrow two-hourly service - two hour round trip = one unit

    Windermere branch - hourly service - one hour round trip = one unit

    So, by my reckoning that’s seventeen Northern DMUs saved, but two more needed (to cover Barrow/ Windermere), so fifteen net units. Plus fifteen TPE units. So thirty DMUs spare.

    Yes, there are some currently doubled up, but that’s a lot harder to quantify. Yes, there is some interworking (And my “rough and ready” figures don’t take that into account). But, that’s how I count it (feel free to do your own figures).

    TPE lose fifteen units, which would mean six 185s go to strengthen the core Newcastle service plus nine 170s go spare. The logical place for the 170s would be Scotrail (who could release a number of 158s) or NXEA (who already run 170s and have nine 156s that could be shared between Northern/ EMT). I don’t see the point in giving the 170s to another TOC as a “micro fleet” is hard to maintain, and it’d mean doubling up of services if they went to Cross Country or London Midland.

    Northern gain fifteen units, which would mean a few Pacers are freed up. I don’t think we have the luxury of being able to withdraw any just yet, so these would mainly be lumped on to existing services for capacity (ideally coupling Sprinters together to maintain a corridor connection, with Pacers replacing 153s and 153s being tagged on to 155/156s etc). Maybe donate a couple of units (each) to EMT/ ATW/ FGW who could each do with some additional DMUs.

    Given that there are 86 319s, and only around thirty needed to convert the Lancashire lines, could other 319s be used to replace the 321s and 323s with Northern? The 321s are four coaches and could add capacity to NXEA, whilst the 323s could go to London Midland for beefing up capacity. However, the 323s are only three coaches - could the platforms on the Glossop/ Stoke/ Crewe lines cope with four coach trains?

    (I appreciate that some 319s may be needed later on if the Thames Valley branches are wired up, but once the new Thameslink EMUs arrive they are going to be needed somewhere, and it makes sense to me to share the 321/323s elsewhere and Northern to take a load more 319s)

    What do you reckon?

    And, yes, a lot of the figures come from Wikepedia, before anyone spots massive holes!
     
  2. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    6,715
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    seems interesting, so are you suggesting this is under or over estimate?

    The problem with TPE getting rid of 170's is that 185's are speed restricted on hull route, so do they want 185's runing regularly on route?

    When si the stuff about northern taking over FTPE NW schduled to happen?
     
  3. me123

    me123 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,521
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2007
    Location:
    Clwyd
    An interesting post, tbtc.

    Giving Scotrail the spare 170s would actually be a very good idea. By the time this is all happening, EGIP should be well underway, so that could potentially release a sizeable number of 158s to go back down South (unlike you, I can't be bothered to work out how many, but I wouldn't be surprised if all the 158s could be released and sent to Northern/EMT/where ever they're needed at that moment in time).
     
  4. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,163
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    I think this is probably a slight underestimate, since there are going to be a number of Lancashire services former of doubled up units (especially with the Pacers replacing the 180s), although interworking of services would mean marginal savings are possible (e.g. if Manchester Airport - Liverpool worked onto Liverpool - Blackpool then would it save one unit?)...

    I think we need to bite the bullet on the Hull service and either schedule it to run slower to cope with heavy 185s, or give it to Northern to run it as a "stand alone" Hull - Leeds service with lighter units. Not saying which is better, but 185s run some duties, so it is possible, and I think it'd benefit TPE to have one common fleet if possible.

    I'm not saying Northern *will* take over Barrow/ Windermere, but operationally it makes sense (rather than running DMUs from the Lake District to Manchester Airport under the wires for 90% of the journey). I'm sure it'll be criticised if these stations lose their direct service to Manchester, but it looks like we are moving closer to an hourly Manchester Airport - WCML - Scotland service, which would mean the Windermere/ Barrow services being truncated.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    I agree with you - I expect the 170s freed up from Scottish electrification to move to cover most 158 routes, which would free up a number of 158s.

    However, the problem then is that 156s may be more appropriate for lines like Wick than 170s (if the 158s leave). What to do?

    Hmm, rough figures from the top of my head:

    Edinburgh - Falkirk - Glasgow = 16 units (doubled up 170s at rush hour taking two hours per round trip every fifteen minutes)

    Edinburgh - Falkirk - Dunblane = five units (two and a half hour round trip on a half hourly service)

    Glasgow - Falkirk - Dunblane/ Alloa = five units (two and a half hour round trip on a half hourly service)

    Chuck in a handful of units saved from Whiffled (two units?), Glasgow - Cumbernauld - Falkirk (three units?), Paisley Canal (two units?), Cumbernauld - Motherwell (one unit), East Kilbride/ Barrhead (five units)...

    ...and you're talking about forty units. There are forty eight 158s. Now, some 158s are doubled up with other DMUs on these lines, but I reckon they might have to give Scotrail about eight 156s or 170s to give them two DMU fleets. Maybe this is perfect for the nine TPE 170s?

    (the maths aren't going to be spot on, there are a number of caveats, I've not included all Kilmarnock services due to Stranraer/ Carlisle interworking, but I reckon if everything planned gets wired in Scotland then there will be enough DMUs saved to release all ScotRail 158s if the TPE 170s head north)
     
  5. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    6,715
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    ah sorry thought you meant it was happening agree it would make sense though :)

    Where is the weight restrictions is it worth upgrading?
    But they could use the extra units then there sorted for capacity for years to come?
     
  6. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,163
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    It's a combination of what we know, informed guesswork and complete speculation!

    I'm not sure how long the weight restriction is for and how big an issue it really is (the one on the line from Norwich to Peterborough is used as an excuse for no 222s running it, but others say it's really quite minor in the grand scheme of things).

    TPE could definately use the extra units, especially from York/ Leeds to Manchester Airport. It's a shame there are no corridor connections on the 185s (for when units are doubled).
     
  7. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    6,715
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    just moved to leeds, and i think that all the time, how can they not of thought they would be needed? it's so stupid it's unbeleivable...

    how many stations on TPE route cannot take 6 cars? i can think of one meadowhall which struggles with a 4 car 170, but i dont know north pennine route well enough yet
     
  8. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,045
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    North TPE on the west side of the Pennines I would expect the only stations that wouldn't be able to take 6 car trains would be Yarm and Thornaby. Yarm's Middlesbrough platform could be extended really easily but the York platform would be a problem as it's blocked by a bridge at one end and a signal at the other.
     
  9. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,163
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    The story is they built them as three cars with an intention to add a fourth, but they then decided not to, and the production line has now been shut/ the emissions are now tighter so no more could be built. One of the problems with building small classes of units...

    I'm not sure where can't take six coach units; certainly all of the main Newcastle - Manchester Airport stations can, but it's the "branches" to Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Hull I can't be sure about. They could always run the six coach part east of York/Leeds, but that would mean taking up platform space at York/Leeds. Dunno.
     
  10. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    6,715
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    hmm yeah so after this newcastle can and will be 6 car, dont 6 car often run on scrabrough branch anyway? see pictures regularly.

    4 car now would be quite good i think, we wouldnt need much extra capacity for them
     
  11. WatcherZero

    WatcherZero Established Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Joined:
    25 Feb 2010
    Yes probably a slight underestimate as a lot of peak services are doubled.

    I guess your assuming no units are required for GWML (which according to Dft press release is still being kicked about and we will find out for sure perhaps next week), a wildcard may also be whether agility is bidding for the Thameslink stock as a combined order with IEP possibly (though slim to zero chance) even ordering some new stock for the North for positive headlines. Agility certainly seems to have said something to the government to get them to reconsider IEP seriously.

    Northern RUS suggest using 6 car on Skipley route and expanding Leeds platform capacity, I think some of the services through Bolton may benefit from 6 car as well.

    Anyway back on topic theirs also the issue of Merseysides stock of 59 507/508 which is about to life expire, could they use some 319's? as they do have end doors and the increase from 3 to 4 car would be beneficial.
     
  12. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,045
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    I forgot the Scarborough branch in my above post :oops: but thinking about it there are definitely problems at Seamer with unit length as the rear unit of the 6 car set is normal locked out of use from what I've heard. From looking at Google Earth it seems that the current platform is around 125m (a two unit 185 being around 150m) but there is plenty of disused platform so it should be fairly simple to extend it.
     
  13. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    6,715
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    Havent merseyrail's units just had refurb at wabtec?

    To be fair i suppose it will all be clearer next week when we know whats happening with MML GWML electrification and IEP and thameslink
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    Well that should be considered, as you can 6 car this all way through then you got two services on core route at 6 car, thats lots of fun capcity for TPE to play with
     
  14. WatcherZero

    WatcherZero Established Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Joined:
    25 Feb 2010
    Are you thinking of Tyne and Wear Metro stock currently being refurbed by Wabtec in Doncaster?
    507/508's were refurbed 2002-05 at Eastleigh (works now also used by Wabtec) with an expected life expiry date of 2014 (According to Merseyrail and Network Rail), now its impossible that new stock could be built or cascaded before then but they must surely be replaced as soon as possible afterwards .
     
  15. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    6,715
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    i thought theyd just been done at doncaster, i know the tyne a wear are at moment. Just got confused....
     
  16. fgwrich

    fgwrich Established Member

    Messages:
    4,777
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2009
    Location:
    Between Edinburgh and Exeter
    Wabtec left Eastleigh after the contract to refurbish FGW & LM's 143 & 153 Fleets finnished last year...
     
  17. PhilipW

    PhilipW Member

    Messages:
    731
    Joined:
    6 Feb 2008
    Location:
    Fareham, Hants
    Back to the original post. Some great imformation, tbtc. Thanks for posting it.

    Two thoughts.

    1) While I realise that Carnforth-Barrow is unlikely to ever get electrified, I think there will be much opposition to curtailing the services to just a Lancaster-Barrow shuttle. There is a lot of travel to/from Preston and Manchester. While I am just as much against running DMUs under the wires as anyone else, I think there will be a case, both politically and economically, for retaining some through Barrow-Manchester services.

    2) In theory the same argument could appply to Windermere services. However if Network Rail have their act together and manage to reduce the per mile electrification costs, I think there could be a good chance of adding on this piece of electrification at the end of the other 4 schemes. The skills will be there, so hopefully it could be done efficiently and relatively cost effectively. I hope so.
     
  18. hairyhandedfool

    hairyhandedfool Established Member

    Messages:
    8,838
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2008
    The Chat Moss electrification is currently still going ahead, there are surveys being carried out on the bridges on the line atm (I have seen the paperwork and it says Manchester-Liverpool Electrification at the top)

    I think the Manchester Victoria (MCV) - Liverpool (LIV) units bit is about right, well largely, I mean it assumes the same units run around all day and I'm not sure about that. Currently atleast three units are used (they currently run through to Stalybridge (SYB)) as the jourey time from LIv - MCV is 1hr 4 mins-ish. But the electrics are supposed to be faster along the route and thus could make it under an hour, the third DMU would still be needed for the MCV-SYB service.

    I can't see the point in replacing the WYPTE 321s, atleast not from Northerns pov, they are trained on the 321s and replacing them just means conversion courses for fitters, maintenance staff, drivers and guards (if used). I don't know if route clearance is needed as they are mk3 based, like the 321, but it seems like change for the sake of change to me.

    The 323s are supposed to be headed for LM anyway, so 319s to replace them seems like a good choice and could be maintained at the same depot (Longsight?).

    As for needing 30? if it could be trimmed to 26 they could just have the class 319/3 units (17 to replace the class 323s and 9 others for MIA/MCV-LIV services), leaving the 60 class 319/0, 319/2 and 319/4 (which all started life as 319/0) for FGW or whoever.

    I believe the initial idea was that some 350s would replace 185s on Manchester Airport-Glasgow/Edinburgh services that would be diverted via Chat Moss as far as the WCML. If the Bolton route does later get electrified it could be re-instated that way, but in the mean time it might allow extra services from MCV to Bolton and beyond to be introduced.

    The only station on the Thameslink route to get extended without a signal at the end of the platform was Luton Airport Parkway. Signals can clearly be moved if the need arises.

    Given the number of 508s in store, I don't think Merseyrail care about extra capacity.
     
  19. bluenoxid

    bluenoxid Established Member

    Messages:
    1,781
    Joined:
    9 Feb 2008
    I agree. It would be a very unpopular cut to make to services.

    Might as well throw the Morecambe branch in aswell. Some nifty use of Bidi could improve journey reliability on the WCML and allow for the doubling of frequency. As I have said elsewhere, this would leave Northern with only Leeds-Lancaster and Lancaster-Barrow (and onwards) as diesel routes in the North West creating another opportunity to create Leeds-Barrow services.

    Now this depends if Stalybridge is remodelled and receives a new bay. One of the suggestions from Northern Hub was to use Stalybridge as a terminus to free up the through platforms.

    It is a small fleet of three units. If it can be sent elsewhere as a result of an increased number of another fleet, I am sure it can be justified. Northern are unlikely to receive more 321's.

    The latest plan had them moving to Northern, with 350/3's being ordered for LM. LM had even posted an OJEU notice for new stock at the same time as SWT.
     
  20. sprinterguy

    sprinterguy Established Member

    Messages:
    8,715
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2010
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    Fascinating figures there tbtc.

    Yeah it was stated in one of previous RUS documents for the north that it would be desirable to have six carriage trains on the West Yorkshire electric network, so LM would get new 350/3 units for the Cross City line, and the 26 323s would go on the Skipton/Ilkley/Shipley routes. Which would mean that the sixteen 333s would go...somewhere. Caused massive uproar from Metro, as they’re not keen on losing the new trains that they fought so hard to get hold of and part funded, in exchange for a fleet of older trains from Brum: But if capacity needs increasing on those routes, then it seems the best way to do it...

    A new build of 350s for Manchester-Scotland would be the perfect opportunity for LM to replace its’ 323s by resurrecting its’ proposed 350/3 order and tagging it onto the end of the Manchester-Scotland order, otherwise it would be a fairly small build of 15 trains on its’ own. That’s assuming that 350s are chosen for the Manchester-Scotland route.

    It seems that one way or another, the north west electrification is going to cause a shake up of the EMUs in the north; either through 319s replacing Manchester 323s, or through LM getting its’ 350/3 order and their 323s heading north.

    Actually, thinking about it, an alternative to the Thameslink 319s heading to Manchester and Liverpool would be to give LM its’ 350/3 order and hey presto, a fleet of 26 class 323s head to the north west for the Manchester-Liverpool services and Northern gain a more standard fleet of EMUs. Displaced Thameslink 319s then increase capacity on trains in the south east, maybe replacing 313s or something.

    I agree. The three 321s should head to NXEA or FCC and be replaced by 319s when/if Manchester gets its' 319s.
     
    Last edited: 21 Oct 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page