New 350's to the rescue...don't think so!!

[Nym]

Ah, well if Windermere is wired... then...

Windermere should get joined up to the Blackpool services at Preston.

Barrow continue to be irritatingly non-standard and 2 hourly (although in the peaks it jumps to Hourly anyway) so perhaps the pepole of Barrow could see some service improvments and get hourly to Manchester (not nesseserally airport) all day.

But if TPE N Electrification comes and TPE gets absorbed into Northern, then I'm at a loss as to what to do with the 185 fleet, it could have a nice home with SWT in exchange for 158s and 159s for oop norf, or keep TPE seperate and hand them some more longer distance routes, loose the turbostars but keep all the 185s with them and replace pacers by handing routes over, then cascading within NT, EMT or ATW.

Moving the maintenance depot for the 185s just seems like hassle that isn't needed, and theres more than enough routes round the North (Centred around Manchester) that aren't going to see Electrification in a long time.

Liverpool - Norwich via Stockport and CLC
MIA (That should become Liverpool via CLC & Stockport) - Cleethorpes
Blackpool N - Scarbough
An extra hourly service York - Scarbrough
Manchester - Barrow
Calder Valley Semi Fasts (Actually fastest)

Combination of them would be a reasonable use for the 185s, and keeping maintenance at Ardwick can't be a bad thing (Can get to Victoria by reversing at Ashburys Sidings)

EDIT: Maybe not a seperate franchise but at the minimum a seperate sub-brand.

Whats going to be happening to the likes of Manc - Scotland then, that going to be within 'Northern' or IntercityWest Coast with 5/6 car pendos that join up at Preston for portion working to Liverpool?

 

[northwichcat]

By the time that the line through Bolton is electrified there may well be no such thing as a separate TPE franchise, so this argument is getting quite hypothetical.

But what about before the line through Bolton is electrified?

There also isn't any guarantee that the TPE franchise will go, it's a possibly they are looking at and even if it does go the new operator may well brand the express services differently like Northern Spirit/ATN did with TPE routes.

 

[Masboroughlad]

350s should not be bought for Intercity services! Proper trains should be! I was on a course in Liverpool once and the trainer couldn't believe he had to use a suburban train for his intercity journey from Birmingham! A LM 350!

 

[Nym]

How would you define a proper train?

Liverpool - Birmingham isn't an intercity service, it's an Inter-Urban one.

Neither will Manchester / Liverpool - Scotland be intercity, it will be calling all stations through cumbria and therefore be an Inter -Urban service too, like TPE is, and you know what TPE have the right type of units, just not enough and not long enough.

 

[Masboroughlad]

Intercity trains, with doors in vestibule ends, a shop/buffet counter and comfy seats. I'm not asking for much. 350s and 185s are fine for local, inter-urban work. I personally don't call Liverpool to Brum and Scotland to Manchester inter urban!

 

[sprinterguy]

I've just been reading Modern Railway magazine and spotted in the editor's note that the new LM and TPE 350's that will replace the 185's will only have 53 more seats than the current 185's.
Who order's train's in this backward country?.
Overcrowding is common place on most services so the government and Network Rail keep telling us, so why order new trains that are just not big enough, what a short sighted waste of what is taxpayers money.
Using Pendolino's as the editor says must surely be a better idea, one that would make overcrowding on the Man-Scotland a thing of the past.
Why do we the paying passenger have to put with such a pathetic government.

Ordering 350s for the Manchester to Scotland run as an add on to the London Midland order will ensure the fastest delivery times for new stock to operate the route. A relatively small capacity increase is better than no capacity increase at all for perhaps an additional year or two if this wasn't route that had been taken, and the TPE 350 order will also indirectly allow some more major capacity increases on the core TPE network across the Pennines.

As has been said by other posters, it's probably only going to be an interim measure anyway.

 

[tbtc]

Intercity trains, with doors in vestibule ends, a shop/buffet counter and comfy seats. I'm not asking for much

So what stock currently in production fits that description?

And would it be economical to build such a small order of them?

350s make a lot of sense in the circumstances (with more improvements in the future)

 

[Class172]

So what stock currently in production fits that description?

And would it be economical to build such a small order of them?

350s make a lot of sense in the circumstances (with more improvements in the future)

A Class 344? (An AC version of the 444).

 

[tbtc]

A Class 344? (An AC version of the 444).

You are talking about building (say) eight EMUs to the spec of something previously built in 2004 - thats going to be pretty expensive (and non standard - at least the 350s will be "standard" once they go to LM in a few years time).

Maybe some "344s" could be the way forward if you need new units for a variety of lines (electrified MML/ TPE North, 90 replacements on the GEML, Manchester - Scotland "TPE" service etc), where you'd be building enough to get a cheaper unit price, but thats maybe ten years away (minimum)

 

[Class172]

It was only a thought!

 

[tbtc]

It was only a thought!

Ideally that'd be a decent type of train for this route, but in the current circumstances:

1. We need something built fairly soon

2. We need something fairly cheap (building them as part of an order for LM 350s will keep the individual price down)

3. (because we only need a handful of new trains for this service) We need something that will be fairly "standard" (don't want to get lumbered with another diddy class like 180s)

4. Testing 350s to 110mph (for the Northampton services) will help them on these routes too

5. A four coach EMU will have enough seats for most journeys (since local traffic in Lancashire won't use these services any more)

In the circumstances, the 350s are the only realistic option.

Funny how Siemens are building more 350s (despite the 380s being the "newest" version), rather than just telling the TOCs that they will only build 380s...

 

[northwichcat]

So what stock currently in production fits that description?

And would it be economical to build such a small order of them?

350s make a lot of sense in the circumstances (with more improvements in the future)

What about 390s? There is a 390 order already in production so it could have been added on to this order. They wouldn't have needed to be 9 car. Long term if another type of unit with corridor connectors are required when Liverpool-Scotland services start the shorter 390s could be cascaded to Birmingham-Scotland (once the Bolton route is electrified they'll be less excuses for using Voyagers.)

5. A four coach EMU will have enough seats for most journeys (since local traffic in Lancashire won't use these services any more)

There's plenty of local journeys made on Virgin services between Wigan and Preston and between Preston and Lancaster. These are just as much local journeys in Lancashire as some on the ones on the Bolton corridor.

It also may well be the case that stops are removed from Glasgow-London services. If this happens more passengers will use Birmingham-Scotland and Manchester-Scotland services.

Funny how Siemens are building more 350s (despite the 380s being the "newest" version), rather than just telling the TOCs that they will only build 380s...

LM issued a tender for a small order saying 'ideally compatible with their existing 350s.' 380s aren't compatible so if Siemens had offered them as the only product they might well have lost what looked like guaranteed business. Siemens have, however, said that the 350s will have a slower delivery process than 380s would have had.

 

[jopsuk]

Maybe some "344s" could be the way forward if you need new units for a variety of lines (electrified MML/ TPE North, 90 replacements on the GEML, Manchester - Scotland "TPE" service etc), where you'd be building enough to get a cheaper unit price, but thats maybe ten years away (minimum)

Or, as it would more likely use the same build technology as the 380, a "384"- perhaps in 6 car formation?

 

[tbtc]

What about 390s? There is a 390 order already in production so it could have been added on to this order. They wouldn't have needed to be 9 car. Long term if another type of unit with corridor connectors are required when Liverpool-Scotland services start the shorter 390s could be cascaded to Birmingham-Scotland (once the Bolton route is electrified they'll be less excuses for using Voyagers.)

125mph (140 capable) units would be overkill on the TPE service (given the need to stop at Lockerbie/ Oxenholme etc).

Plus there's the "dead space" on 390s, due to the crumple zone, meaning not a lot of seats for trains of that length (like your stat about a three coach 323 having almost as many standard class seats as a nine coach 390). Cut the 390 down to only (say) six/seven coaches and the proportionate "waste" of the crumple zone space is even more significant.

Hopefully EMUs on the Liverpool - Blackpool services will soak up some of the demand for Wigan - Preston passengers, though (as I understood it) we didn't yet know whether the TPE services would actually stop at Wigan (or just be diverted that way)? Maybe you know more.

It also may well be the case that stops are removed from Glasgow-London services. If this happens more passengers will use Birmingham-Scotland and Manchester-Scotland services.

There's not really many stops that can be removed from the Glasgow - London services, most of them are fairly "limited" stop north of Wigan as it is . Then again, there are some who want them to be slowed down to stop at Crewe etc too, so they can't win.

LM issued a tender for a small order saying 'ideally compatible with their existing 350s.' 380s aren't compatible so if Siemens had offered them as the only product they might well have lost what looked like guaranteed business

Compare and contrast to the Bombiardier/ Southern/ 377/ 379 story...

 

[ole man]

Why not use Javelin's on this service?.
These can easily do 125, and imagine have a better acceleration than 350's, oh and the most important bit more seats.
And give the Northern people a new train service they have longed deserved

 

[Eagle]

There's not really many stops that can be removed from the Glasgow - London services, most of them are fairly "limited" stop north of Wigan as it is . Then again, there are some who want them to be slowed down to stop at Crewe etc too, so they can't win.

Well, the preferred option of both Network Rail and the DfT for the tenth hourly path out of Euston is a Preston stopper (including some Trent Valley calls) with an alternate extensions to Blackpool North and Lancaster. Doing this means that the Glasgow trains will become first stop Preston—admittedly a saving of only two calls...

 

[tbtc]

Why not use Javelin's on this service?.
These can easily do 125, and imagine have a better acceleration than 350's, oh and the most important bit more seats.
And give the Northern people a new train service they have longed deserved

I guess the unit cost of (say) ten 395s would be quite high, compared to the cost of sharing a bigger order (of 350s) with LM (when the 350s can easily be cascaded to LM in a few years time)

Nice trains though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, the preferred option of both Network Rail and the DfT for the tenth hourly path out of Euston is a Preston stopper (including some Trent Valley calls) with an alternate-hour extension to Blackpool North. Doing this means that the Glasgow trains will become first stop Preston—admittedly a saving of only two calls...

I guess that may well happen - a Preston/Blackpool service (picking up the local traffic north of Crewe) would be a better use of resources than a lot of the WCML suggestions (though Liverpudlians won't be happy).

 

[northwichcat]

125mph (140 capable) units would be overkill on the TPE service (given the need to stop at Lockerbie/ Oxenholme etc).

Plus there's the "dead space" on 390s, due to the crumple zone, meaning not a lot of seats for trains of that length (like your stat about a three coach 323 having almost as many standard class seats as a nine coach 390). Cut the 390 down to only (say) six/seven coaches and the proportionate "waste" of the crumple zone space is even more significant.

Well for a start you'd have one driving car as FC and the rest as standard if you were using them for Manchester-Scotland. You can also gain significant space by not having a kitchen and a shop.

That 323 vs 390 standard class capacity stat was used when someone said about dividing up revenue based on the number of seats provided. If 323s were refurbed to be more suitable for medium distance journeys you'd probably lose just under 1/2 the seats.

Hopefully EMUs on the Liverpool - Blackpool services will soak up some of the demand for Wigan - Preston passengers, though (as I understood it) we didn't yet know whether the TPE services would actually stop at Wigan (or just be diverted that way)? Maybe you know more.

I was thinking more about Pendolinos omitting calls north of Preston affecting Manchester-Scotland. If Glasgow-London stops calling at Lancaster, for instance, then there's a lot of Preston-Lancaster passengers to transfer to other services.

Where TPE will call at Wigan is unclear. There's too many variables involved to make an educated guess, such as will Pendolinos continue to serve Wigan or see it as a stop to remove to speed up services and will LM run a stopping service to Preston? The Manchester Hub document mentions faster Wigan-Manchester services but doesn't say how these will be achieved.

There's not really many stops that can be removed from the Glasgow - London services, most of them are fairly "limited" stop north of Wigan as it is . Then again, there are some who want them to be slowed down to stop at Crewe etc too, so they can't win.

The Crewe stop was only removed from Glasgow-London due to short-sightedness. The defence was that the Crewe stop will be removed from Liverpool and Glasgow to London services but additional Manchester-London and Chester-London services would all serve Crewe.

However, in doing that a direct link between Warrington and Crewe had it's frequency halved. It'd be like EMT deciding to no longer serve Chesterfield and no replacement service operating instead.

Glasgow-Londons call at either Penrith or Oxenholme (alternating between the two) and some peak time/late night services call at Lockerbie or Motherwell.

Compare and contrast to the Bombiardier/ Southern/ 377/ 379 story...

So are 377s and 379s not compatible?

There is a slight difference in that Southern are asking for a slightly revised 377 design to have 5 cars per set and LM are asking Siemens for more of the same.

 

[Pumbaa]

LM issued a tender for a small order saying 'ideally compatible with their existing 350s.' 380s aren't compatible so if Siemens had offered them as the only product they might well have lost what looked like guaranteed business. Siemens have, however, said that the 350s will have a slower delivery process than 380s would have had.

There were was no ideally about it - the tender stated compatible. So compatible they shall be.

 

[Pumbaa]

The Crewe stop was only removed from Glasgow-London due to short-sightedness. The defence was that the Crewe stop will be removed from Liverpool and Glasgow to London services but additional Manchester-London and Chester-London services would all serve Crewe.

It was nothing of the kind. The Crewe call was always wanted, but it just couldn't make the timetable work. Going Up to London there was no platform availability, and the original recast before all the options for Blackpool/Lancaster extra services were introduced was to get that Crewe stop inserted. It just never worked.

 

[Lampshade]

Why not use Javelin's on this service?.
These can easily do 125, and imagine have a better acceleration than 350's, oh and the most important bit more seats.
And give the Northern people a new train service they have longed deserved

They'd still be limited to 110mph as they don't tilt.

Where TPE will call at Wigan is unclear. There's too many variables involved to make an educated guess, such as will Pendolinos continue to serve Wigan or see it as a stop to remove to speed up services and will LM run a stopping service to Preston? The Manchester Hub document mentions faster Wigan-Manchester services but doesn't say how these will be achieved.

Preston - Wigan and Manchester - Wigan are already well covered, there's certainly demand for non-stop Preston - Manchester services.

 

[ole man]

But the original issue was seating, would a Javelin have more seats than a 350?.

 

[Lampshade]

But the original issue was seating, would a Javelin have more seats than a 350?.

Well yes, but what's the point in using 140mph high speed units when they won't be able to run above 110mph? It'd be like using 125mph units on 75mph commuter lines into Manchester... oh wait :roll:

An AC 444 would be superb, but they're out of date by most measures now. It would be better to combine a new order for Manchester - Scotland with a 444-esque order to replace the LHCS on London - Norwich, which would be much better suited.

 

[WatcherZero]

They'd still be limited to 110mph as they don't tilt.



Preston - Wigan and Manchester - Wigan are already well covered, there's certainly demand for non-stop Preston - Manchester services.

The Preston-Wigan-Warrington are packed to the rafters, its the pinch point of maximum loading on the route as its also a mini commuter area.

 

[Nym]

Hence the gap for a Crewe - Lancaster / Preston stopper when NT becomes flush with 319s that no-one else wants.

 

[Eagle]

Hence the gap for a Crewe - Lancaster / Preston stopper when NT becomes flush with 319s that no-one else wants.

As I said, a London–Preston hourly stopper will probably come under the remit of the new West Coast franchise at the next recast in 2013ish.

 

[Lampshade]

As I said, a London–Preston hourly stopper will probably come under the remit of the new West Coast franchise at the next recast in 2013ish.

We don't need that though, we need a local/commuter service such as:

Crewe > Winsford > Hartford > Acton Bridge > Warrington Bank Quay > Wigan North Western > Euxton Balshaw Lane > Leyland > Preston

Introducing more London services is all very well but not everyone wants to go to London :roll:

 

[Nym]

Lampshade, mine would do...

Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington BQ, Earlstown, Newton Le Willows, Wigan NW, Euxton, Leyland, Preston.

Operated by 319 units, under Northern, get some competition on the route (and hopefully saver tickets!)

 

[Eagle]

Crewe > Winsford > Hartford > Acton Bridge > Warrington Bank Quay > Wigan North Western > Euxton Balshaw Lane > Leyland > Preston

London Midland have their eyes on doing that, starting from Birmingham and replacing one of the Liverpool runs.

 

[tbtc]

As I said, a London–Preston hourly stopper will probably come under the remit of the new West Coast franchise at the next recast in 2013ish.

We don't need that though, we need a local/commuter service such as:

Crewe > Winsford > Hartford > Acton Bridge > Warrington Bank Quay > Wigan North Western > Euxton Balshaw Lane > Leyland > Preston

Introducing more London services is all very well but not everyone wants to go to London :roll:

A separate London - Preston/ Blackpool service will have a lot more seats for Crewe/ Warrington/ Wigan/ Preston journeys than the current London - Glasgow service does.

Plus with EMUs (319s?) on Liverpool - Wigan - Preston - Blackpool, you'll get a bit more capacity on that section too.

So that'd be three trains an hour from Wigan to Preston (the Birmingham one, the London one and the Liverpool one), two of which are also serving Crewe and Warrington... all four coach minimum, not too bad a level of service (when you take away the number of London - Glasgow passengers from the equation).