Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[WatcherZero]

Would be a bit pointless to lease 350's before the electrification was done wouldn't it.

 

[Statto]

Will Northern be able to make use of all 319s? That's 86 trainsets. Plus 10 350/4s.

Not to say that I'd be complaining, mind, but the point is that although a good number of lines are being electrified, would that 96 sets not be overkill even for replacing all diesel run services on those routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What would we likely see for TPE instead?

IEPs for the NW-Scotland service maybe? I'd eat my hat...

No chance, NR will be doing well to use 50 of the class 319 sets, 17 sets would be needed to replace the 323s, with extra 25-35 sets to cover the rest of NR electrification even that might be too many with 10 class 350s.

 

[WatcherZero]

102 Pacers to replace
1 153 to EMT
Approx 33% increase in seats across the board minimum required to meet crowding target, remember 1x319 is less seats than 2xDmU
Taking on Blackpool/Windermere/Barrow services with electric stock needed for Blackpool/Windermere after 185 sublease ends
20 319's already not even covering all services on NW electrification phase 1
Other electrified route announcements to follow this month with publication of Electrification prioritisation plan and Network Rails Transforming Northerns railways plan (HS3).

Northern bidders should be quite capable of soaking up all 319's with the intention to have some spare for follow on projects and North TPE. Initial oversupply allows them the slack to do comprehensive refurbs.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No chance, NR will be doing well to use 50 of the class 319 sets, 17 sets would be needed to replace the 323s, with extra 25-35 sets to cover the rest of NR electrification even that might be too many with 10 class 350s.

That sounds a lot more realistic. Hopefully with the enormous amount of AC stock that will be coming up for cascade in the medium-term they'll have an incentive to carry on electrifying the north: Manchester-Liverpool via Warrington, Warrington-Ellesmere Port and Crewe-Chester are all obvious candidates, paving the way for North Wales electrification in the future, wiith an infill between Chester and Helsby. The first would definitely benefit enormously from improved acceleration too, what with the large number of stops.

 

[martynbristow]

That sounds a lot more realistic. Hopefully with the enormous amount of AC stock that will be coming up for cascade in the medium-term they'll have an incentive to carry on electrifying the north: Manchester-Liverpool via Warrington, Warrington-Ellesmere Port and Crewe-Chester are all obvious candidates, paving the way for North Wales electrification in the future, wiith an infill between Chester and Helsby. The first would definitely benefit enormously from improved acceleration too, what with the large number of stops.

Ellesmere Port has been raised as an issue around Stanley so it unlikely, its also not worth the outlay is it. Battery supported stock is a possibility.
The Liverpool CLC to Warrington is an odd one as Merseyrail could take the Liverpool to Warrington which makes things complicated. There is already an electric line from Liverpool to Manchester is it worth doing a second, although it would fit nicely. I wouldn't bet on it anyway.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ellesmere Port has been raised as an issue around Stanley so it unlikely, its also not worth the outlay is it. Battery supported stock is a possibility.
The Liverpool CLC to Warrington is an odd one as Merseyrail could take the Liverpool to Warrington which makes things complicated. There is already an electric line from Liverpool to Manchester is it worth doing a second, although it would fit nicely. I wouldn't bet on it anyway.

I honestly can't see battery stock taking off - the trials have already proved it to not be too reliable, and we have to think in the long term here, especially when it comes to interconnectivity.

And I wouldn't be so sure that having 1 electrified route means the other will be discounted. They care about the cost-benefits of doing so, and not the arbitrary idea that because you've got one another just wouldn't be worth it. Edinburgh-Glasgow is a good example of this. To be honest, in-fill and expansion of existing electrified networks tend to do quite well, simply because the foundations for electrification is already there. TOCs also prefer to have homogeneous stock, too.

What're the issues with Stanley? And I'm sure they're just as "insurmountable" as every other issue raised in the past. I don't think I've ever heard NR declaring something impossible and saying it'll never be done, but people on here remain convinced. Had we been having this discussion 5 years ago the Severn tunnel would have been declared impossible, and in 5 years' time or so the Forth bridge will be yet another one of these disproved myths as the Fife circle inevitably gets approved etc. etc. etc.

 

[martynbristow]

No chance, NR will be doing well to use 50 of the class 319 sets, 17 sets would be needed to replace the 323s, with extra 25-35 sets to cover the rest of NR electrification even that might be too many with 10 class 350s.

I thought Northern were only getting part of the fleet, with some going to the GWML when that gets sorted.
Although Northern will need a good number to cover capacity increases, I wouldn't out numbers next to what they could/couldn't use just yet. The prospect of faster journeys, more stock and less failures in the long run could boast commuting numbers.
a friend of mine would drive to Manchester daily sitting in the congestion just because the train was that awful and unreliable.
Solve that and your onto a winner
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I honestly can't see battery stock taking off - the trials have already proved it to not be too reliable, and we have to think in the long term here, especially when it comes to interconnectivity.

And I wouldn't be so sure that having 1 electrified route means the other will be discounted. They care about the cost-benefits of doing so, and not the arbitrary idea that because you've got one another just wouldn't be worth it. Edinburgh-Glasgow is a good example of this. To be honest, in-fill and expansion of existing electrified networks tend to do quite well, simply because the foundations for electrification is already there. TOCs also prefer to have homogeneous stock, too.

Warrington: Well yes but as you say cost-benifit ratio. Currently if you electrified it you would only get the 2tph stopper under the wires, everything else runs beyond the wires, TPE going to Scarborough and EMT to Norwich. If your interested in the fast commuters then they can use Chat Moss. There will be no shortage of 185's soon :/ (well 10 years)

Ellesmere Port - The story goes Stanlow poses a risk to using electrification as the line passes through the site, its also shockingly underused.

I'm not saying Northern don't want to go that way, its going to be Governments Decision, and plenty of money is being splashed on transport currently as it is.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Warrington: Well yes but as you say cost-benifit ratio. Currently if you electrified it you would only get the 2tph stopper under the wires, everything else runs beyond the wires, TPE going to Scarborough and EMT to Norwich. If your interested in the fast commuters then they can use Chat Moss. There will be no shortage of 185's soon :/ (well 10 years)

Ellesmere Port - The story goes Stanlow poses a risk to using electrification as the line passes through the site, its also shockingly underused.

I'm not saying Northern don't want to go that way, its going to be Governments Decision, and plenty of money is being splashed on transport currently as it is.

But it's important to remember that the benefits of electrification work best on the long-distance market and on the all-stoppers services. It's the lines in between (e.g. Stoke-Derby) that are less worth bothering with (at least for now). Imagine the time that could be saved if you were on a 319 and not a Pacer!

That's fair enough about Stanlow, although I imagine something could be done to mitigate it? We'll see, anyway. I was more thinking that the overall benefit would be for the eventual electrification of the North Wales line, which will happen eventually.

 

[Codville]

As someone uninformed what are the issues with Stanlow?

 

[martynbristow]

As someone uninformed what are the issues with Stanlow?

From post 46 in thread 494329
The objection was from Shell, i don't know any details

 

[PaintYourWagon]

sorry, wrong forum.

 

[Codville]

Cheers, interesting read.

 

[po8crg]

As someone uninformed what are the issues with Stanlow?

The line passes through a massive oil refinery. When Merseyrail were electrifying to Chester and Ellesmere Port, they proposed to go on to Helsby and faced objections on safety grounds from Shell, the then owners. This was pre-internet, so the detailed documents aren't online. Might be worth a FoI to Merseyrail.

Whether the current owners would have a different view, whether the same concerns apply to OHLE, whether there is a technological advancement that would make it safer. I don't know on any of those counts, and I don't think anyone does.

I will say that sparks in an oil refinery sounds like a bad idea.

 

[Wavertreelad]

From post 46 in thread 494329
The objection was from Shell, i don't know any details

I suspect this may be an historic objection, as Shell no longer own the Stanlow site, it is in fact owned by the Indian Essar Group. The plant has also been substantially cut back in recent years and the production largely contained within the fenced site along Oil Site's Road. This remains a public highway even if it is blocked about halfway to prevent through movements. As a result the road is open to both petrol and diesel road vehicles, and if there was any danger there would certainly be a restriction on petrol vehicles. Anybody who has been on the site, or to the terminal at Tranmere, or even Eastham will know the movement of petrol vehicles is restricted to prevent sparks. The railway line is further even away from the site that also used to operate when steam trains were used so it's difficult to understand today why such an objection should exist.

 

[edwin_m]

Warrington: Well yes but as you say cost-benifit ratio. Currently if you electrified it you would only get the 2tph stopper under the wires, everything else runs beyond the wires, TPE going to Scarborough and EMT to Norwich. If your interested in the fast commuters then they can use Chat Moss. There will be no shortage of 185's soon :/ (well 10 years)

TPE will go via Chat Moss in the new franchise, with a replacement Northern service which I don't think needs to go onto any other non-electrified routes, so the case has just improved a bit.

 

[daniel3982]

How many diesels are currently in the Northern fleet?

Obviously 120 new carriages to come.

Surely the next big bang of electrification will be from Sheffield. Would release a ton of units by electrifying Nottingham - Leeds via Barnsley and Sheffield - Doncaster/Moorthorpe.

 

[johnnychips]

Electrifying Doncaster-Sheffield, though having evident strategic advantages, would not release many units unless the timetables were changed. XC, TPE would still have non-electrified sections. NR run to Hull via Goole. The stoppers from Adwick and Scunny reverse at Sheffield and continue to Worksop or Lincoln (and isn't there something that SYPTE require direct services to Meadowhall from these places?)

 

[BantamMenace]

How many diesels are currently in the Northern fleet?

Obviously 120 new carriages to come.

Surely the next big bang of electrification will be from Sheffield. Would release a ton of units by electrifying Nottingham - Leeds via Barnsley and Sheffield - Doncaster/Moorthorpe.

A larger release of DMUs would be the Harrogate loop from Leeds to York, this operates 2tph with mostly paired up DMUs.

 

[deltic08]

A larger release of DMUs would be the Harrogate loop from Leeds to York, this operates 2tph with mostly paired up DMUs.

Electrifying the Harrogate Loop would free up nine units half of them being Pacers.

 

[daniel3982]

Manchester Vic to Leeds must free up a few?

 

[philjo]

Electrifying the Harrogate Loop would free up nine units half of them being Pacers.

Also the service spec in the new franchise states 4 trains per hour will run Leeds to Harrogate off peak from Dec 2017 (currently 2 tph) so electrifying would allow emus to be used instead of adding to the requirement for DMUs - possibly some of the other 319s?

 

[northwichcat]

Also the service spec in the new franchise states 4 trains per hour will run Leeds to Harrogate off peak from Dec 2017 (currently 2 tph) so electrifying would allow emus to be used instead of adding to the requirement for DMUs - possibly some of the other 319s?

You won't get the line electrified by the end of 2017.

Presumably Harrogate will get a lot less doubled up DMUs when the service enhancement starts.

 

[ianhr]

Presumably Harrogate will get a lot less doubled up DMUs when the service enhancement starts.

Oh the same old solution to everything in the North! lets run lots and lots and lots of 2-car trains at ever increasing frequencies to satisfy demand until passenger comfort is zero and reliability crashes because track occupancy is saturated (it already is at Leeds!).

Agree though that there is NO chance of Harrogate being electrified before 2017.....they havn't even started on ANYTHING east of the Pennines yet.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Agree though that there is NO chance of Harrogate being electrified before 2017.....they havn't even started on ANYTHING east of the Pennines yet.

I wonder if some smug smiles can be seen on the faces of those in the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce and Trade who less than two years ago made representations for ex-London Undergrould units to run on the Harrogate Line....then the Vivarail D78 project hove into view not so long ago..

 

[northwichcat]

Thread's gone off-topic again!

To bring it sort of back on topic I noticed in Porterbrook's 323 brochure they claim the following:

The 3-car units contain almost as many seats as a 4-car unit of 20m vehicles so the running cost per seat is around 25% less than the more common 20m design.

That might be worth noting when suggesting 319s should replace 323s to give Northern a common fleet.

 

[Greybeard33]

Thread's gone off-topic again!

To bring it sort of back on topic I noticed in Porterbrook's 323 brochure they claim the following:

That might be worth noting when suggesting 319s should replace 323s to give Northern a common fleet.

As I posted in response to your similar post on the ITT thread:

Whereas Porterbrook's 319 brochure suggests the option of removing some seats from the trailer cars to further increase crush loaded capacity (which is already greater than the 323's).

With the prospective future surplus of old EMUs, Porterbrook must be anxious to keep its 86 319s in service as long as possible, in competition with Angel Trains' 317s and Eversholt's 318s, 320s, 321s and 322s. Whereas the 43 323s will no doubt remain in demand. So Porterbrook might be expected to offer attractive lease rates for the 319s, which might offset their higher running costs vis-a-vis the 323s.

 

[mtbox]

Thread's gone off-topic again!

To bring it sort of back on topic I noticed in Porterbrook's 323 brochure they claim the following:

That might be worth noting when suggesting 319s should replace 323s to give Northern a common fleet.

The 323's are going nowhere.
Calculations have been done by Northern and the 319's would not be able to keep time on the Hadfields, due to poor acceleration of the 319. Also track realignment or platform rebuilding at Hadfield and extending the platforms at Godley and Flowery Field would be needed.

 

[DJH1971]

Well, looks like the 319's up North will now start paying their way from tomorrow.

 

[507 001]

Well, looks like the 319's up North will now start paying their way from tomorrow.

Definitely??

 

[deltic08]

You won't get the line electrified by the end of 2017.

Presumably Harrogate will get a lot less doubled up DMUs when the service enhancement starts.

They won't need to be if running every 15 minutes. A single 153 would be enough off peak but where are the extra drivers and conductors coming from? Fares will have to rise if the manpower is doubling without doubling passenger numbers and car parking which will not happen for years. Subsidy will have to come from somewhere as the TOC will not stand the loss.

There will be an awful lot of empty seats on a 319 off peak post electrification in 2023

That is what happens when someone ignorant in railway matters such as Harrogate Chamber presses for ever better services without assessing the consequencies. Twice an hour all day off peak is perfectly adequate.