Lancashire Electrification (the facts and figures)

[tbtc]

Not entirely sure Scotrail would want two-car 170s- they have an entirely 3-car fleet at the moment. The only reason I could see for them wanting two car units would be if they were considering displacing 158s from the Far North and 156s from the West Highland- where three-car units may well be too long.

As they already operate 170s they are a natural home to the nine from TPE, and a two car 170 coupled to a three car 170 is no worse than a two car 158 coupled to a three car 170. 170s to Scotrail to replace the 158s (unit for unit) would mean Scotrail got modern trains and had a better fleet of just two DMU types (easier for training/ maintenance/ rostas etc)

156s would be more suited to the Far North, given the line-speeds, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did get 170s (especially with through running to Edinburgh)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Scotrail ended up with the nine two carriage 170s I imagine they'd be useful to bolt onto three carriage units to make up five carriage trains, like what is done with the 158s at the moment. Especially if Scotrail's 158 fleet is sent elsewhere. I agree that Scotrail probably wouldn't be keen on having two car units on their own merit though when the majority of the fleet of 170s is three car: Though then again if the 158s were to leave Scotland it could be argued that it would make for more of a standard DMU fleet than they have currently.

That's the way I see it too.

On a "unit for unit" basis I think it makes sense to send the nine 170s to Scotrail, which would allow them to replace all 158s once the central belt electrification is compelted (by my reckoning the electrification would "save" about 40 DMUs, which means you'd only need about nine new units to cancel out *all* Scotrail 158s - the maths is almost too perfect...)

 

[507 001]

Merseyrail 507/508's have indeed just been overhauled (not refurbished) at Wabtec Doncaster

Whatever gets done needs to be done soon, I hardly travel on trains between liverpool and manchester that aren't packed to the rafters with people anymore!

 

[bluenoxid]

I thought that the plan for the 323's is now to supplement the 333's rather than replace them outright. I believe that a reasonably large fleet would be created from cascading 333's to Leeds-Doncaster services, running additionals up the valley and extensions of electrification to the proposed Leeds East Parkway, York, Selby, Halifax and Horsforth

 

[tbtc]

I thought that the plan for the 323's is now to supplement the 333's rather than replace them outright. I believe that a reasonably large fleet would be created from cascading 333's to Leeds-Doncaster services, running additionals up the valley and extensions of electrification to the proposed Leeds East Parkway, York, Selby, Halifax and Horsforth

It's hard to find more use for EMUs in Yorkshire, unless there is further electrification. However we could replace the (Sheffield) Doncaster - Adwick DMU and the (Sheffield) Fitzwilliam - Leeds DMU by doubling the Doncaster - Leeds EMU service.

Advantages of this are:

1. Stations on the Doncaster - Leeds line get a straight half hourly service - at the moment the co-ordination is pretty poor, especially with the Sheffield - Doncaster - Adwick service

2. This could be a half hourly Doncaster - Bradford service, giving Bradford/ Shipley a direct link to the main ECML, which gives additional London connections

3. EMUs would mean better acceleration in terms of getting out of the way of 225s!

4. The Sheffield - Adwick service could be truncated to Doncaster, or maybe tagged onto the Doncaster - Hull stopper

5. The Sheffield - Dearne Valley - Fitzwilliam service could be sped up as a result and get the journey time closer to an hour (currently 74 mins southbound), which would mean no longer getting overtaken by the Voyagers, and be enough to attract "through" passengers off the busy Cross Country service

6. There are going to be spare EMUs in the next few years, and no spare DMUs, so this would allow longer EMUs to be used and the DMUs "spared" to provide additional capacity elsewhere.

 

[David]

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?

I think tthe main problem on the Hull route is Selby Swing Bridge, but on the other hand, 185s are speed restricted between Swinton and Chinley on the South TPE route (HST and SP differentials that 170s can run to), yet the 170s are slower ....

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

Meadowhall can cope with a 6 car 185, although it is a tight fit. It's the same at Scunthorpe, Barnetby and Grimsby (although P1 is restricted to 3 cars only at the minute), and to a lesser extent, Doncaster (P3b).

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think tthe main problem on the Hull route is Selby Swing Bridge, but on the other hand, 185s are speed restricted between Swinton and Chinley on the South TPE route (HST and SP differentials that 170s can run to), yet the 170s are slower ....



Meadowhall can cope with a 6 car 185, although it is a tight fit. It's the same at Scunthorpe, Barnetby and Grimsby (although P1 is restricted to 3 cars only at the minute), and to a lesser extent, Doncaster (P3b).

didn't know about swinton to chinley, why did they buy units that were restricted on routes :/

 

[jonesy3001]

Me thinks the 323`s that might be coming from LM should go to Longsight with the others that are based there and make a uniform fleet for the existing northbound services and the liverpool-manchester route.
The 350`s should go to TPE for the Airport-scotland services freeing up 185`s to go on existing routes as 3/6 or 9 cars.