Northern Class 195: Initial Diagrams

[northernchris]

Blackpool - York has been spoken about for this year sometime. They really won’t be suitable for this route due to the lack of luggage racks (the overhead racks will be unable to take large suitcases).

Quite a big design flaw then especially as the 195s will regularly be going to Manchester Airport!

 

[Bovverboy]

According to RTT, 1Y91 (1943 Barrow to Manchester Airport) is also scheduled to use the Bolton line and, therefore, of course, pass through Salford Crescent (at 2137). It isn't scheduled to stop at Salford Crescent or anywhere else between Preston and Manchester Oxford Road.

Although this is supposed to be via Bolton, when it runs (which seems far from guaranteed at the moment) I've seen it run by either route.

I have to say, I've never known a train be diverted from its booked route without good reason. Okay, sometimes that reason isn't immediately apparent, but investigation usually finds it.
I've looked back over the past week and found that 1Y91 operated via its booked route Monday/Tuesday/Thursday - on Wednesday & Friday it didn't operate. As you say, its operation is anything but guaranteed at the moment, and I would say that Barrow duties are every bit at risk as duties worked from Greater Manchester/Merseyside bases. I can't help but think that this 'new' service is, as has happened so many times before, going to be blighted by unreliability.

 

[Mathew S]

I have to say, I've never known a train be diverted from its booked route without good reason. Okay, sometimes that reason isn't immediately apparent, but investigation usually finds it.
I've looked back over the past week and found that 1Y91 operated via its booked route Monday/Tuesday/Thursday - on Wednesday & Friday it didn't operate. As you say, its operation is anything but guaranteed at the moment, and I would say that Barrow duties are every bit at risk as duties worked from Greater Manchester/Merseyside bases. I can't help but think that this 'new' service is, as has happened so many times before, going to be blighted by unreliability.

I didn't mean to indicate that it happened all the time, but it does happen. As you say, I'm sure there's a good reason when it does. The amount of disruption that there's been over the past few months/years on the Bolton line, it'd have been more surprised if it had operated consistently.

In terms of unreliability, the biggest problem that these services face is the very short turnaround at Manchester Airport. Skipping of the stops between Piccadilly and the Airport happens too regularly in order to make up a few minutes, and it's also too common for the services to be terminated at Piccadilly so that they can depart back north vaguely on time. And that's before we get onto the seemingly permanent issues of staffing the damned things that Northern seem unable to achieve.

I really hope that tomorrow goes without a hitch... but I'm completely expecting "Northern cancel new trains due to crew shortage" headlines.

 

[Yorkshireman16]

Blackpool - York has been spoken about for this year sometime. They really won’t be suitable for this route due to the lack of luggage racks (the overhead racks will be unable to take large suitcases).

thanks for that

 

[Greybeard33]

In terms of unreliability, the biggest problem that these services face is the very short turnaround at Manchester Airport. Skipping of the stops between Piccadilly and the Airport happens too regularly in order to make up a few minutes, and it's also too common for the services to be terminated at Piccadilly so that they can depart back north vaguely on time.

Yes, only 8 minutes turnaround at the Airport for the Barrow/Windermere services, although that is 1 minute more than the Blackpools get. The Liverpools get a leisurely 22 minutes. Two of the TPE services get 28 minutes, while the other two get 40 minutes, clogging up the platforms and polluting the Airport station with the diesel fumes and racket from the 185s' idling engines!

 

[Philip]

Yes, only 8 minutes turnaround at the Airport for the Barrow/Windermere services, although that is 1 minute more than the Blackpools get. The Liverpools get a leisurely 22 minutes. Two of the TPE services get 28 minutes, while the other two get 40 minutes, clogging up the platforms and polluting the Airport station with the diesel fumes and racket from the 185s' idling engines!

Thought the 185 engines switch off after a few minutes idling?

Rochdale to Clitheroe may see 195s, since a 90mph unit is required for the Rochdale bit. Haven't read that 158s will definitely run the service, or that 195s are ruled out.

 

[johntea]

Stick them on Blackpool North to York and they'll be wrecked within a few weeks thanks to the various stag and hen groups pre or post partying on board!

 

[Geeves]

Thought the 185 engines switch off after a few minutes idling?

Rochdale to Clitheroe may see 195s, since a 90mph unit is required for the Rochdale bit. Haven't read that 158s will definitely run the service, or that 195s are ruled out.

Rochdale to Clitheroe is all stops between Rochdale and Vic. No 195s will be going on that service unless something goes seriously wrong somewhere.

 

[Philip]

Rochdale to Clitheroe is all stops between Rochdale and Vic. No 195s will be going on that service unless something goes seriously wrong somewhere.

They'd still be a better choice for the service than a 158, because of the commuter door layout and the quick acceleration.

 

[mikemcniven]

Todays allocations

Barrow - Manchester Airport
0453 (Circuit 3) : 195 116.
0548 (Circuit 2) : 195 117.
0647 (Circuit 4) : 195118.
0746 (Circuit 1) : 195121

Liverpool - Wilmslow
0613 (Circuit 6&7) : 195102 + 195120

Manchester Airport to Liverpool
0650 (Circuit 5) : 195119


195 Diagrams by Mike McNiven, on Flickr

 

[Mathew S]

Todays allocations

Barrow - Manchester Airport
0453 (Circuit 3) : 195 116.
0548 (Circuit 2) : 195 117.
0647 (Circuit 4) : 195118.
0746 (Circuit 1) : 195121

Liverpool - Wilmslow
0613 (Circuit 6&7) : 195102 + 195120

Manchester Airport to Liverpool
0650 (Circuit 5) : 195119


195 Diagrams by Mike McNiven, on Flickr

According to Journeycheck, 195118 on the 0647 has suffered some kind of fault and was 15 mins delayed by the time it got to Ulverston. Great start

 

[Mathew S]

According to Journeycheck, 195118 on the 0647 has suffered some kind of fault and was 15 mins delayed by the time it got to Ulverston. Great start

So, this service was 30-down by the time it got to Grange over Sands (which is kind of impressive in a depressing way). It's now not stopping at three of it's planned station calls in a vain attempt to make up time, but will still likely be 20+ late on its return journey.
What a very Northern way to introduce a new train.

 

[Bovverboy]

So, this service was 30-down by the time it got to Grange over Sands (which is kind of impressive in a depressing way). It's now not stopping at three of it's planned station calls in a vain attempt to make up time, but will still likely be 20+ late on its return journey.
What a very Northern way to introduce a new train.

It would be interesting to know what the problem was, since it doesn't look to have lost any further time (to speak of) after Grange. It actually left Manchester Airport a few more minutes down than it arrived, so it looks as though there was still some issue to sort out.

As to missed calls, the three it missed southbound were the three it should have called at after Piccadilly - Burnage, Gatley, and Heald Green. (RTT says it actually called at Heald Green, but it also gives identical arrival and departure times, so I think we can conclude that it didn't.
On the return it again skipped the stations it should have called at between the Airport and Piccadilly - Heald Green and East Didsbury.

Being 27L southbound at Picc makes me wonder why it wasn't terminated there, but it's likely there were considerations I don't know about, and I'd be the first to say that this terminating prior to a booked destination does go a shade too far sometimes.

I have to say, I've never known a train be diverted from its booked route without good reason. Okay, sometimes that reason isn't immediately apparent, but investigation usually finds it.
I've looked back over the past week and found that 1Y91 operated via its booked route Monday/Tuesday/Thursday - on Wednesday & Friday it didn't operate. As you say, its operation is anything but guaranteed at the moment, and I would say that Barrow duties are every bit at risk as duties worked from Greater Manchester/Merseyside bases. I can't help but think that this 'new' service is, as has happened so many times before, going to be blighted by unreliability.

I see that the 1147 ex-Barrow is being terminated at Preston, and the return 1429 Airport-Windermere is being started there. I don't know what time these facts were announced, but it was long before the train was due to leave Barrow. So it doesn't look as though the service is getting any sort of priority, first day or not.

 

[Roose]

195118 on the 0647 arrived at the airport nearly half an hour late and the return service is likely to arrive in Barrow around twenty minutes late.

 

[Crossover]

Being 27L southbound at Picc makes me wonder why it wasn't terminated there, but it's likely there were considerations I don't know about, and I'd be the first to say that this terminating prior to a booked destination does go a shade too far sometimes.

Possibly it is more mither to terminate on the through platforms (particularly at short notice) than it is to just keep it going? The through platforms can be chaotic even at the best of times in my experience

 

[Bletchleyite]

Possibly it is more mither to terminate on the through platforms (particularly at short notice) than it is to just keep it going? The through platforms can be chaotic even at the best of times in my experience

Terminating trains at Picc 13/14 needs to be outright banned unless a safety issue (such as loss of interlock) means the service absolutely cannot continue. The knock-on would be far worse than the gain from turning the train short.

 

[Greybeard33]

Thought the 185 engines switch off after a few minutes idling?

At Manchester Airport all three engines of a 185 are left idling throughout the layover.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At Manchester Airport all three engines of a 185 are left idling throughout the layover.

Should only be two out of three on that stretch.

 

[Mathew S]

Possibly it is more mither to terminate on the through platforms (particularly at short notice) than it is to just keep it going? The through platforms can be chaotic even at the best of times in my experience

There's no reason they can't just turn these around at Oxford Road to be honest. They've done it before and it saves the pratting about with the through platforms at Picc.

 

[scrapy]

Quite a big design flaw then especially as the 195s will regularly be going to Manchester Airport!

According to Northern there is space under seats for cases as the seats are attached to the wall not the floor, also space between seat backs. There is also space for

Terminating trains at Picc 13/14 needs to be outright banned unless a safety issue (such as loss of interlock) means the service absolutely cannot continue. The knock-on would be far worse than the gain from turning the train short.

Should it not be for the signaller to decide? There are times through Picc 13/14 that several trains run a few minutes apart but there are also longer gaps. An outright ban would mean no chance to recover a service as there are times when a train cannot be turned at Oxford Rd due to platforms 3 and 5 being used and 1 being unsuitable for passengers with restricted mobility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should it not be for the signaller to decide?

There will almost never be a time when it's sensible to do it. Best stop people getting ideas.

 

[Greybeard33]

I see that the 1147 ex-Barrow is being terminated at Preston, and the return 1429 Airport-Windermere is being started there. I don't know what time these facts were announced, but it was long before the train was due to leave Barrow. So it doesn't look as though the service is getting any sort of priority, first day or not.

That diagram is still being worked by a 158 not a 195. JourneyCheck says the short workings are due to a shortage of train drivers.

 

[Mathew S]

According to Northern there is space under seats for cases as the seats are attached to the wall not the floor, also space between seat backs.

There's plenty of luggage space. Under the seats, between the seats, in the capacious overhead racks, and an alcove to one side of each door. Loads of space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's plenty of luggage space. Under the seats, between the seats, in the capacious overhead racks, and an alcove to one side of each door. Loads of space.

Based on my experience of lazy passengers who will not put bags up on Class 350s, that will not be enough. They will need to remove a bay from the centre section and put a rack in.

Under the seats is not an acceptable place for large bags as it takes up legroom.

It is grossly incompetent to design a train for inter-regional express services such as Barrow and Windermere without a proper double-stack floor mounted luggage rack. These are not just on commuter journeys with primarily hand-luggage, they are probably on Northern's most tourist-oriented service of the lot.

 

[Mathew S]

Based on my experience of lazy passengers who will not put bags up on Class 350s, that will not be enough. They will need to remove a bay from the centre section and put a rack in.

Under the seats is not an acceptable place for large bags as it takes up legroom.

It is grossly incompetent to design a train for inter-regional express services such as Barrow and Windermere without a proper double-stack floor mounted luggage rack.

Seriously, there's plenty of space by the doors for properly big luggage (ie. anything too big for either under the seats or the overheads).

 

[geoffk]

No-one has yet commented on the lack of doors between carriages - a first in the north surely (apart from Pacers), but I know London Overground units are like this. It could improve personal security but is heat going to be lost through the gangway connections in the winter months? My journey was from Manchester to the airport and back. The driver said it was good to drive and the only issue was getting the doors to stay open when I got off at Oxford Road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seriously, there's plenty of space by the doors for properly big luggage (ie. anything too big for either under the seats or the overheads).

No, there isn't. That's standing room, and it's fanciful to suggest it won't be used for that purpose because Northern are barely increasing their fleet size once the Pacers are gone.

Seriously, try any Trent Valley or Brum-Euston LNR if you want to see how incredibly wrong they have got this.

Any non-commuter train (and these are not commuter trains) needs at least one double shelf luggage stack about 2m long (or several giving that capacity) or you get cases in all sorts of stupid places. Crikey, they even saw fit to install them on Class 700s because they serve two airports, and those are primarily commuter EMUs.

I maintain that this decision was grossly incompetent and will bite them on the backside.

 

[Crossover]

There's no reason they can't just turn these around at Oxford Road to be honest. They've done it before and it saves the pratting about with the through platforms at Picc.

Agreed that Oxford Road is a better place for it

 

[Mathew S]

No, there isn't. That's standing room, and it's fanciful to suggest it won't be used for that purpose because Northern are barely increasing their fleet size once the Pacers are gone.

Seriously, try any Trent Valley or Brum-Euston LNR if you want to see how incredibly wrong they have got this.

Any non-commuter train (and these are not commuter trains) needs at least one double shelf luggage stack about 2m long (or several giving that capacity) or you get cases in all sorts of stupid places. Crikey, they even saw fit to install them on Class 700s because they serve two airports, and those are primarily commuter EMUs.

I maintain that this decision was grossly incompetent and will bite them on the backside.

We're just going to have to disagree then. You're right that there will be luggage in all sorts of stupid places, but that's the case however much luggage space you provide because people, in general, are dumb.
The reality is that, for the airport journeys at least, these are primarily short distance commuter trains with airport passengers almost an add-on. There is plenty of space if people use it sensibly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We're just going to have to disagree then. You're right that there will be luggage in all sorts of stupid places, but that's the case however much luggage space you provide because people, in general, are dumb.

People do put bags in floor-level stacks in the first instance if they are provided in a sensible place, i.e. between the door and their seat. On Pendolinos and Voyagers they are always full before it ends up in stupid places.

The reality is that, for the airport journeys at least, these are primarily short distance commuter trains with airport passengers almost an add-on. There is plenty of space if people use it sensibly.

It's not Ringway I'm talking about (as loadings are low so cases all over the seats don't matter). It's Barrow and Windermere. Though that does rather back up my view that that service group needs dedicated rolling stock.

This is not a new problem. I remember going up to Windermere in about 1994 on a Venture Scout trip, stock was then Class 156, and we ended up with our rucksacks piled about 5' high blocking a door. We had to go round the outside to get them out when we arrived (the guard was unimpressed but failed to give an answer to the question of where else they could go), and no doubt hacked a load of people off. And those are units with both luggage stacks and a van area as well as reasonably sized overheads - the luggage requirement on those tourist-oriented services is simply massive.