EMU cascade what happens after crossrail & Thameslink

[The Stationmaster]

From the London & South East RUS summary list of recommendations january 2012

 

New GWML peak service structure based

on: 20trains per hour main line via

Reading; 16trains per hour relief lines

(including 10trains per hour to Heathrow Airport)

 

documents:

http://www.networkra...anuary 2012.pdf

http://www.networkra...on strategy.pdf

 

Thanks for that Phil - very interesting. And it's not so much the speed of HEX trains but more a matter of removing them in order to free paths for other trains (some of which are only 100mph capable) which does make a bit more sense - although it doesn't answer the question (in the bit you quoted at any rate) about hoew trains will be crossed t/from the Mains in the off-peak period when the Mains are still busy.

 

And it does of course come back to HEX being prepared to cede paths and in fact close down as a rail business because Crossrail would supplant it as the airport link. Presumably that has already been agreed or some interesting debates are taking place somewhere as HEX's trains would be unsuitable for operation through the central tunnel section. If the plan frees two platforms at Paddington then it seems fairly clear that HEX will finish - certainly as a Paddington based operation thereby releasing two lots of units back into the marketplace including some which could well be suitable for Thames Valley outer suburban with comparatively little internal modification and a ready 100mph capability.

[phil-b259]

From the same RUS document the draft Thameslink services (2tph) are shown as

 

Brighton semi-fast - Bedford semi-fast 12-car All day

 

Brighton stopping - Bedford semi-fast 12-car All day

 

Three Bridges via Redhill - Peterborough semi-fast 12-car All day

 

Horsham via Redhill - Cambridge semi-fast 12-car All day

 

East Grinstead - Bedford semi-fast 12-car Peak only

 

Caterham (fast north of Norwood Junction) - St Albans stopping 8-car All day

 

Tattenham Corner (fast north of Norwood Junction) - Welwyn Garden City stopping 8-car All day

 

Tunbridge Wells via Tonbridge - Bedford semi-fast 12-car Peak only

 

Ashford International via Tonbridge - Luton semi-fast 12-car Peak only

 

Maidstone East semi-fast via Catford - Welwyn Garden City stopping 8-car All day

 

Sevenoaks skip-stop via Catford - Luton stopping 8-car All day

 

Bellingham - stopping via Catford - St Albans stopping 8-car All day

 

Personally given their Distance from London I would have made the Peterborough & Cambridge trains start back at Brighton although given the current FCC service goes to Bedford perhaps a 50/50 split between the ECML and MML might be better. As predicted Bedford gets rather more services than it strictly needs which could be alivated by extending some of them when the wires get further up the MML. My other observation would be that the Three Bridges and Bellingham seem a bit of a waste given they (especially T Bridges) will be served by plenty of other Thameslink services. Then again if you rule out Eastbourne & Littlehampton there are not many alternatives. Uckfield could have been a contender if it were electrified - (That would also avoid the need to aquire yet more diesels to strengthen the services as recomedned in the RUS)

[jonhall]

And it does of course come back to HEX being prepared to cede paths and in fact close down as a rail business because Crossrail would supplant it as the airport link. Presumably that has already been agreed or some interesting debates are taking place somewhere as HEX's trains would be unsuitable for operation through the central tunnel section.

 

I can't help feeling that BAA's interest is actually in running the airport, and when the only way to get a fast link into London was to do it themselves, then thats what they did, but if someone else wants to run a high frequency service into the central London area, then why would they hold out all that hard - yes I'm sure that they will want to recoup some of the investment, but running trains isn't exactly a core profit center.

 

Jon

[Glorious NSE]

36 trains per hour into Paddington is a huge number. Despite the reports suggesting that this can be managed with the current infrastructure (at Paddington) I do wonder just how big a knock-on will be caused by a small delay of an inbound / out bound train.

 

It's not 36tph into the existing infrastructure at Paddington, it's 20tph into that existing infrastructure (from the fast lines) and 16tph into the Crossrail tunnels (from the slow lines).

[chrisf]

Re Thameslink, I fear that there will be too many tentacles south of the river to make for a reliable service. We shall see.

 

As for Crossrail, I seem to recall that the MD of FGW was complaining a while back that there would be insufficient capacity in Paddington to handle the traffic. This does not square all that well with turning trains from the east back at Westbourne Park as there is nowhere for them to go. Have we forgotten that one of the reasons for Crossrail was to free up terminal capacity at Liverpool St and Paddington?

 

Chris

[Glorious NSE]

I believe FGW barring some inner London area operations are simliar whilst major rural predominant operations like Arriva Wales also will retain Guards for many decades to come.

 

The Thames Valley routes I think are DOO, the Intercity have a guard (as do all Intercity trains at present I think?) - the former Wessex operation has guards, but like ATWs rural bits then guards are almost certainly a cheaper option than providing all rural stations with a manned barrier line, or providing free travel for everyone as there would be no ticket offices, no ticket machines and no sales on the train either!

[The Stationmaster]

Re Thameslink, I fear that there will be too many tentacles south of the river to make for a reliable service. We shall see.

 

As for Crossrail, I seem to recall that the MD of FGW was complaining a while back that there would be insufficient capacity in Paddington to handle the traffic. This does not square all that well with turning trains from the east back at Westbourne Park as there is nowhere for them to go. Have we forgotten that one of the reasons for Crossrail was to free up terminal capacity at Liverpool St and Paddington?

 

Chris

I agree absolutely with your first comment Chris - one of the biggest potential problems with what was originally called 'Thameslink 2000' was the risk of perturbation on, in particular, 'the tentacles south of the river' creating major problems on the central section where trains will at times be running on 2 minute headways and I know an awful lot of planning work and 'testing' was done on junction clashes south of the river. I await the outcome with interest.

 

I similarly wonder about the ambitions of Crossrail in train frequency terms - it s going to be very prone to the impacts of almost any sort of perturbation with the numbers that are being talked about and it will do little to avoid a lot of the interchange which currently takes place onto the Met, Circle and Bakerloo Lines at paddington although it will undoubtedly act as a great relief for the Central and the Bakerloo Line's Oxford Circus traffic. So it will take folk away from the Lawn area at Paddington and that will be helped by also removing Underground interchange passengers from the Lawn area as well (as I understand things). However presumably improved cross-London journey times will also create new flows to the mainline station at Paddington off Crossrail - after all 14 trains an hour from the east will terminate there!

 

The big benefit I can see is the unspoken one which has been mentioned above - the possible end of HEX. If that happens it will release 2 dedicated platforms on the 'mainline' side which will greatly increase platforming flexibility for everything else, and whose presence has been a thorn in the side of planners ever since they were 'given' to HEX. I bet the MD of FGW would love that if it happens.

[Edwin_m]

I can't help feeling that BAA's interest is actually in running the airport, and when the only way to get a fast link into London was to do it themselves, then thats what they did, but if someone else wants to run a high frequency service into the central London area, then why would they hold out all that hard - yes I'm sure that they will want to recoup some of the investment, but running trains isn't exactly a core profit center.

 

I can't help feeling that BAA's interest is to make money and everything else is ancillary to that. The walkup cash fare is £19, over three times the Tube cash fare (even more in first class or if you buy on the train) and presumably will be at a similar premium to the Crossrail fare. So I think BAA will do whatever they can to ensure that HEX continues.

[The Stationmaster]

I can't help feeling that BAA's interest is to make money and everything else is ancillary to that. The walkup cash fare is £19, over three times the Tube cash fare (even more in first class or if you buy on the train) and presumably will be at a similar premium to the Crossrail fare. So I think BAA will do whatever they can to ensure that HEX continues.

In that respect I think you're right Edwin although from the stuff Phil posted it is very clear that 'someone' (or several someones) has designs on getting shot of them. At present the express service always looks to be well loaded whenever I see it and the reception/passenger access arrangements at Paddington are very good at platform level. I suppose - apart from the access contracts issue - the real question is how many folk would be prepared to carry on using a premium service when a cheaper one is available from more central parts of London via Crossrail?

 

Of course a potential alternative is that HEX runs through the Crossrail tunnels but I wonder if the trains are suitable with no end access although presumably continuous trainside access would mean there would be no need for that? and there then remains the question of how a premier service could be integrated with 'basic Crossrail' at all relevant stations. Lots of big question marks over HEX I suspect although it will obviously lose its stopping train service to Crossrail.

['CHARD]

Reading the Crossrail spec it seems unlikely that anything other than the bespoke Class 345s will be capable of use in the Central Section, except for engineering tackle. Station interfaces and some of the section's other features will be unique at the time of service introduction. Detrainment and pull-in/ push-out characteristics are of course facets of this that would mitigate against use of existing HEx stock. Moreover, there will be no opportunity for testing anything other than the 345s between programmed completion of the central section and scheduled service introduction.

[phil-b259]

In that respect I think you're right Edwin although from the stuff Phil posted it is very clear that 'someone' (or several someones) has designs on getting shot of them. At present the express service always looks to be well loaded whenever I see it and the reception/passenger access arrangements at Paddington are very good at platform level. I suppose - apart from the access contracts issue - the real question is how many folk would be prepared to carry on using a premium service when a cheaper one is available from more central parts of London via Crossrail?

 

Of course a potential alternative is that HEX runs through the Crossrail tunnels but I wonder if the trains are suitable with no end access although presumably continuous trainside access would mean there would be no need for that? and there then remains the question of how a premier service could be integrated with 'basic Crossrail' at all relevant stations. Lots of big question marks over HEX I suspect although it will obviously lose its stopping train service to Crossrail.

 

Part of the apeal of HEX to certain airline passengers is precisely the high fares charged (and the exceeding comfortable 1st / premier / business / whatever HEX call it acomadation). After all if you are flying business class and not paying for the ticket, why share train space with the 'lower classes' as some might put it. Such customers are also more likly to use a cab at Paddington for onwards travel than the tube. Now if HEX disapeared would such passengers be prepared to use Crossrail or would they revert to using cabs from the airport?

 

It was never intended to be that way because the origional plans had BAA responsable for funding the tunnel section while BR funded trains, provided the staff, etc (i.e. just like the origional Stansted Express setup). Unfortunatley privitisation apeared on the horizon and to prevent the whole project grinding to a halt, responsability for the opperation of the service was passed to BAA who were then free to develop the service as they wished (remember their atempts to get out of having yellow ends) - focusing on premium passengers (hence no service between GWML surburban stations and the airport for many years after it opened) because as BAA put it - there is allways the Picadilly line for those with travelcards or who think the fare excessive.

 

As I said before the future of HEX will baically come down to a political decision based on which group of vested interests shouts louder. On the one hand you have the Thames Valley & GWML commuters lobby comprising of voters from important tory supporting districts and on the other you have the tory's big business friends including BAA, the CBI, etc (many of whoam are desperate to force a rethink on Heathrow expansion).

[frobisher]

It would be daft to scrap the 442s - even though I agree they are unsuitable for Southern. Ideal (with power car removed) as a push-pull unit.

 

As I understand it, they can already be used in that mode (no need to remove the powered car) but you'd need to rebuild the control systems or use a 33/1 and they are relatively thin on the ground these days. Better to redeploy within the 3rd rail network if possible.

[The Stationmaster]

As I said before the future of HEX will baically come down to a political decision based on which group of vested interests shouts louder. On the one hand you have the Thames Valley & GWML commuters lobby comprising of voters from important tory supporting districts and on the other you have the tory's big business friends including BAA, the CBI, etc (many of whoam are desperate to force a rethink on Heathrow expansion).

 

And I reckon the third item in that mix will be Crossrail - it's unlikely to appeal to commuters west of Slough/Burnham unless it delivers passenger accommodation & comfort on a par with Class 165s/166s together with obvious real savings in journey times. And there are no doubt still a few Maidenhead and Marlow branch commuters who were around in the days of loco hauled stock plus they don't all go the same way as Crossrail in the central area.

 

So it will be an interesting 'debate' and as far as I know (Phil might?) no one has yet asked for moderation of competition between Paddington and the airport - which might be the only way to get shot of HEX (which is, of course, an open access operator), We live in interesting times.

[Oakydoke]

As it stands, HEX operates on a 25 year legally binding commercial contract with NR, for the use of the GWML.

The terms wil not be changing before 2023 unless the BAA agree to any change in the contract.

This is the sticking point in trying to move HEX off the fast lines during peak periods in order to get those extra paths between Paddington and Reading and some negotiation or deal will be needed in order to achieve any progress on this matter.

 

Off course what happens after 2023 will be quite different and the intial impact of Heathrow Crossrail services on HEX will have been assessed by then and will help reshape the future arrangements.

 

 

As for the GWML relief lines.

Once in operation, Crossrail fundementally changes the status of the Relief lines between Maidenhead and Paddington.

The central section of Crossrail will not be part of the NR national railway infrastructure, but will come under TfL.

West of Paddington, just like Plumstead to Abbey Wood and Stratford to Shenfield to the east of London, will remain with NR rail, but bound up in a contract with TfL and Crossrail, which effectively prioritises Crossrail in any planning.

The usual DfT and NR arranges do not apply as TfL and the Mayor's office are part of the process and have a large degree of control over what happens on these stretches of railway.

[DavidLong]

After the recent electrification announcements there hasn't been any speculation or comment on what new trains if any will be needed. When the lancashire triangle and the GW elec schemes were announced it was said that they would use 319 emu's displaced by thameslink and rebuilt/refurbished with air con etc and a very small build of desiro's.

Now there's to be a great deal more lines to be electrified what emu's will be provided? Not knowing much about crossrail, will it displace other emu's from LTS or anglia? Is there any hope bombardier in derby might get new orders out of these latest schemes or will there be enough stock to cascade around the regions?

 

The original question related to the homely prospect, for the likes of Gronk and myself, of what we may find waiting for us at Trinity Street after Thameslink (2000) and Crossrail have triggered a cascade but this seems to have morphed into a discussion about those projects. Fascinating though it is, isn't there a separate thread for that or should one be started?

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

West of Paddington, just like Plumstead to Abbey Wood and Stratford to Shenfield to the east of London, will remain with NR rail, but bound up in a contract with TfL and Crossrail, which effectively prioritises Crossrail in any planning.

 

That's interesting as it directly contradicts international agreements to which NR is a party - wonder how they're going to resolve that if and when the need arises?

[phil-b259]

As for the GWML relief lines.

Once in operation, Crossrail fundementally changes the status of the Relief lines between Maidenhead and Paddington.

Not quite as much as you think

The central section of Crossrail will not be part of the NR national railway infrastructure, but will come under TfL.

Yup just like the core of the East London Line

West of Paddington, just like Plumstead to Abbey Wood and Stratford to Shenfield to the east of London, will remain with NR rail, but bound up in a contract with TfL and Crossrail, which effectively prioritises Crossrail in any planning.

The usual DfT and NR arranges do not apply as TfL and the Mayor's office are part of the process and have a large degree of control over what happens on these stretches of railway.

Wrong

 

What has happened is NR have signed an agreement with Crossrail (much to the anoyance of the freight companies) to gaurantee a certain number of train paths in the peak, and a lower number of paths off peak excusively for Crossrail. Yes due to the intensity of service Crossrail will be the main user of the relief lines / electric lines but they will not be the ones with the final say on things. The actual timetabling remains with NR who have an element of flexability as to how this is aranged bering in mind the need to allow access to Acton yard, the NLL chord, and intermodals to get between Woodgrange Park & Stratford. In times of disruption and when engineering work is required it will still be NR (albut in close co-operation with all the TOCs - including Crossrail) who will decided on what services get prority over the restricted line space. Also it should be noted that in the peaks Crossrail to Shenfield will be enhanced with extra stopping services from Liverpool St (terminus) and as yet I have not seen anything to say they are deffinatly going to be part of the Crossrail opperation or whether they will stay with Anglia.

 

Finally it should be noted that there is no love lost between the DfT and TfL, (rumor has it things like the wiring of the GOBLIN and Greenford branch and the mayors desire to take over all surburban rail opperations are the current spats) and while the DfT has to have regard to TfLs plans, the DfT can overule them when it comes to the national rail network (logical if you consider NR is funded by central government not TfL)

 

At the end of the day the actual relationship will have been thrashed out over many years and hopefully is one which takes into account everybodies needs, be it Freight, Intercity passengers and Crossrail on what is a very busy section of railway.

[phil-b259]

After the recent electrification announcements there hasn't been any speculation or comment on what new trains if any will be needed. When the lancashire triangle and the GW elec schemes were announced it was said that they would use 319 emu's displaced by thameslink and rebuilt/refurbished with air con etc and a very small build of desiro's.

Now there's to be a great deal more lines to be electrified what emu's will be provided? Not knowing much about crossrail, will it displace other emu's from LTS or anglia? Is there any hope bombardier in derby might get new orders out of these latest schemes or will there be enough stock to cascade around the regions?

 

Part of the problem predicting what you will have is simply down to uncertanty over the new fleet orders. If the 319s are to be released then Seimens / Central Government will have to get a move on or you simply won't have any electric stock for use in the north. Similarly the idea was to test the new Crossrail stock on the Shenfield - Liverpool St service before Crossrail opens but again, procurement has been delayed. The LTS fleet was renewed in the early years of privitisation with electrostars while the Great Eastern route already has a number of Desiro units in its fleet with West Anglia recently aquiring Electrostars for the Stansted and Cambridge runs (the later making some 317s surplass to requirements). In theory if both the Desiro (possably in conjunction with the construction of some 444 like units for the Norwich run) and Electrostar fleets were expanded then all of the 321s and the rest of the 317s would become spare.

 

As for further afield, the MML could get have the Meridan units fitted with a pantograph car like XC while a further build of IEPs could replace the HSTs but local services are more of a problem. However if they start, finish or use streaches of non electrified track en route, then the exsisting DMUs will remain, otherwise yes Bombardier or Semiens will have to get building more electrostars / desiros to fill the gap.

 

At the end of the day this latest batch of routes to be electrified is perhaps driven more by freight than anything else (not the absence of Birmingham - Derby & Sheffields - Leeds both of which are pretty esential if XC were to have a straight electric option in their fleet) and as such decisions on local stock will have to wait untill nearer the time.

[Oakydoke]

West of Paddington, just like Plumstead to Abbey Wood and Stratford to Shenfield to the east of London, will remain with NR rail, but bound up in a contract with TfL and Crossrail, which effectively prioritises Crossrail in any planning.

The usual DfT and NR arranges do not apply as TfL and the Mayor's office are part of the process and have a large degree of control over what happens on these stretches of railway.

Wrong

 

What has happened is NR have signed an agreement with Crossrail (much to the anoyance of the freight companies) to gaurantee a certain number of train paths in the peak, and a lower number of paths off peak excusively for Crossrail. Yes due to the intensity of service Crossrail will be the main user of the relief lines / electric lines but they will not be the ones with the final say on things....

......Finally it should be noted that there is no love lost between the DfT and TfL, (rumor has it things like the wiring of the GOBLIN and Greenford branch and the mayors desire to take over all surburban rail opperations are the current spats) and while the DfT has to have regard to TfLs plans, the DfT can overule them when it comes to the national rail network (logical if you consider NR is funded by central government not TfL)

 

At the end of the day the actual relationship will have been thrashed out over many years and hopefully is one which takes into account everybodies needs, be it Freight, Intercity passengers and Crossrail on what is a very busy section of railway.

 

Indeed, but my understanding is that despite the way it appears, TfL have the greater political sway which effectively gives them a great deal of influence.

As you say, the Mayors office have grand designs and I expect them to exercise their weight when it suits them.

Other than the Crossrail services, the GWML TOC is already left with just a few crumbs in the way of paths east of Slough (4 tph at peak).

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed, but my understanding is that despite the way it appears, TfL have the greater political sway which effectively gives them a great deal of influence.

As you say, the Mayors office have grand designs and I expect them to exercise their weight when it suits them.

Other than the Crossrail services, the GWML TOC is already left with just a few crumbs in the way of paths east of Slough (4 tph at peak).

But there are also freight operators who need booked daytime paths (don't forget that the GWML is the second busiest freight route into the London conurbation) plus the route is intended as a deep sea container diversionary route let alone diversions off the Mains for perturbation and planned engineering work. There is thus no logical way in which someone other than a common (of all lines and loops) infrastructure owner can have operational and access control over it - Crossrail is 'just another train operator' (albeit one with an awful lot of trains - until they start reducing service levels that is).

 

If Crossrail needs its own railway there's a simple answer - go back to the 6 track alternative at least as far out as Hayes (and ideally West Drayton).

[Edwin_m]

As for further afield, the MML could get have the Meridan units fitted with a pantograph car like XC while a further build of IEPs could replace the HSTs but local services are more of a problem. However if they start, finish or use streaches of non electrified track en route, then the exsisting DMUs will remain, otherwise yes Bombardier or Semiens will have to get building more electrostars / desiros to fill the gap.

 

The electrification in the East Midlands doesn't release a single DMU from local services, unless either there are extra infill electrifications, of which Derby-Matlock is the smallest, or services such as Leicester-Nottingham-Lincoln are split.

 

At the end of the day this latest batch of routes to be electrified is perhaps driven more by freight than anything else (not the absence of Birmingham - Derby & Sheffields - Leeds both of which are pretty esential if XC were to have a straight electric option in their fleet)

 

This may be so in the south midlands but further north the ending of electrification at Sheffield makes little sense for freight. It won't reach the terminals near Wakefield and Leeds, and even Castle Donington will need an extra section electrifying from Sheet Stores Junction. This part is basically a scheme for MML passenger services with some freight ideas tacked on, but little electric freight will operate on the northern part of the spine unless either there is infill electrification north of Sheffield or more terminals appear further south. XC will be able to take advantage if they end up with pantograph cars in Voyagers.

 

The flipside is that the Midland will be an all-electric route, assuming that the depot strategy removes the need for the few Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham and Corby-Syston extensions which are essentially stock positioning moves. Thus it probably makes sense to procure a fleet of 444-type electrics for the Midland and cascade the Meridians elsewhere. Candidate routes might be Birmingham-Stansted, Nottingham-Cardiff or Liverpool-Norwich.

[gronk the shunter]

what I am confused about, and what prompted me to start the thread was where are all the existing stock going to? As I understand it the thameslink new Siemens stock will be 1200 vehicles, whereas the existing fleet is 319&377 together is about 440 cars, the 313 fleet about 120 cars and 317/321 fleets about 80 cars totalling 640 cars. Even allowing for longer formations, 12 cars for every 8 used now there's still far more new stock than old.

 

Will some southern units or the 365's be replaced as well? Assuming that any PEP design stock is scrapped (but I bet it isn't) there will beat least 130 four sets displaced, not including any cascaded from crossrail or any 365's, there seems to be a lot of 20-25 year old units being made redundant, none of which would be an improvement on the pennine 185's So where are they all going to go?

[jamie92208]

what I am confused about, and what prompted me to start the thread was where are all the existing stock going to? As I understand it the thameslink new Siemens stock will be 1200 vehicles, whereas the existing fleet is 319&377 together is about 440 cars, the 313 fleet about 120 cars and 317/321 fleets about 80 cars totalling 640 cars. Even allowing for longer formations, 12 cars for every 8 used now there's still far more new stock than old.

 

Will some southern units or the 365's be replaced as well? Assuming that any PEP design stock is scrapped (but I bet it isn't) there will beat least 130 four sets displaced, not including any cascaded from crossrail or any 365's, there seems to be a lot of 20-25 year old units being made redundant, none of which would be an improvement on the pennine 185's So where are they all going to go?

 

I think the honest answer is that no one knows.

 

Reading Roger Ford in Modern Railways the D(a)ft is supposed to be producing a rolling stock strategy. This hasn't happenned. Also the three big procurementsw, IEP, Thameslink and Crossrail are all running very late and in IEP's case have been changed in scope. The 319's were earmarked for the Thames valley commuter routes and the North Western electrification but then so many other routes have been put on the wiring priogram that it is all in chaos.

 

With the D(a)ft insisting on micro managing and the state of the franchise replacement program which also keeps slipping for a variety of reasons I think that my first answer still stands.

 

 

Jamie

[Glorious NSE]

Running the numbers:

 

FCC

Class 319s all move on - 86 units, 344 cars.

Class 317s all move on - 12 units, 48 cars

Class 321s all move on - 13 units, 52 cars

So - 444 cars up for grabs, 111 sets.

Class 377s are subleased from Southern, no reason why they would not go back there, so not up for grabs.

Class 313s will still be needed for Moorgate services, but the fleet size may be reduced?

Class 365s will still be needed for Kings Lynn services (apparently Thameslink trains will be unable to serve) - but again fleet size may change (and the DfT keep muttering IEP about that one which would then free them all up - 40 sets, 140 cars...)

 

Part of the fleet increase will be because various services South of the Thames which are currently Southern or SET worked will also become Thameslink workings, I would bet on the fleet increases there being absorbed locally though.

It seems logical that the 377s going back to Southern (which will be the same organisation by the time it happens) plus other increases South of the Thames may allow the Southern 313s (19 sets, 57 cars) and 442s to be made redundant (again).

 

So where do the 111 go...some guesswork.

 

* The NW electrification already under way will need some. (I think there are some 317s in store to kick that off?)

* Thames Valley electrification will also need quite a few.

* The TPX electrification will also allow some Northern workings on that route to become EMU worked.

* Northern already has pockets of EMU working centred on Leeds and Manchester, fleet increases on those routes will account for some.

* I wouldn't bet against 317/9/21 units going to Manchester to cascade the Northern 323s down to Birmingham - that would mean a 'like' fleet in the West Midlands for their Cross City expansions and Manchester gets 4 car trains instead of 3 car.

 

That seems to be plenty of use to start off with...

I still would not bet against a PTE using this work to fund electrification of a route that has not been announced yet either.

 

If the 365s are replaced I would suggest they could be brought up to good enough quality for TPX, I would have thought that adding a/c on refurb would be possible, they are smooth riding 100mph units with air-tight doors already, and with a bit of care and an interior re-jig should be able to give a similar ambience to a Turbostar without the underfloor engine.

 

One big question though is timing - particularly for the Thames Valley will they be freed up quickly enough to have their refurb and go into service.

['CHARD]

 

So where do the 111 go...some guesswork.

 

* The NW electrification already under way will need some. (I think there are some 317s in store to kick that off?)

* Thames Valley electrification will also need quite a few.

* The TPX electrification will also allow some Northern workings on that route to become EMU worked.

* Northern already has pockets of EMU working centred on Leeds and Manchester, fleet increases on those routes will account for some.

* I wouldn't bet against 317/9/21 units going to Manchester to cascade the Northern 323s down to Birmingham - that would mean a 'like' fleet in the West Midlands for their Cross City expansions and Manchester gets 4 car trains instead of 3 car.

 

 

There are 317s in store, and one's about to get a new traction package, IIRC.

 

Regarding consolidation of the 323 fleet, that also sounds very laudible, and as a Cross-City user, I'm all in favour.