A six-car set should have been left at Hull, then?
No-one is suggesting that it shouldn't be maintained.
So how do you suggest major track renewals are carried out adjacent to a TMD without any disruption to access to/from that depot?
A six-car set should have been left at Hull, then?
No-one is suggesting that it shouldn't be maintained.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any focus on customers. These are the people for whom the railway exists. Anyway, I put the answer above. Whilst I realise that there are complexities to even (appaently) simple issues (such as providing a 6-car train, rather than a 3-car train, as the first train to go westwards across the Pennines on a bank holiday), I would be surprised if it could absolutely not have been achieved.So how do you suggest major track renewals are carried out adjacent to a TMD without any disruption to access to/from that depot?
You can always chuck your hat into the ring. I'm sure train planning would love your can do attitudeThat sounds like really good management; presumably by the DfT.
I absolutely do have a focus on customers. But there was an implication that the DfT had consciously, or even deliberately, decided to renew the track outside the Leeman Rd depot just to disrupt customers. Infrastructure maintenance/renewal will impact services, it's unavoidable.I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any focus on customers. These are the people for whom the railway exists. Anyway, I put the answer above. Whilst I realise that there are complexities to even (appaently) simple issues (such as providing a 6-car train, rather than a 3-car train, as the first train to go westwards across the Pennines on a bank holiday), I would be surprised if it could absolutely not have been achieved.
You can always chuck your hat into the ring. I'm sure train planning would love your can do attitude
Has Transpennine now descended into complete chaos or is it still just heading in that direction?55 full cancellations tomorrow
Would the Huddersfield stoppers be able to run as a 6 car with the rear 3 locked out?
Personally I'd take the coach. National Express still every hour?....and no alternative Northern Calder Valley services today!
If that isnt asking for trouble I don't know what is be that people being crushed or trampled or the risk of a terrorist attack in such a crowded areaGoing well at Victoria tonight.
True but the Leeds - Huddersfield stopper couldn't realistically run as a 6 car.It can run as a six-car in service. Piccadilly, Stalybridge, and Huddersfield all take six-cars. Mossley is five-car, with Greenfield, Marsden, and Slaithwaite being four-car (IIRC).
True but the Leeds - Huddersfield stopper couldn't realistically run as a 6 car.
Certainly six car trains ran for most of the pandemic, the guard travelling in the rear set and advising passengers at each stop.It can run as a six-car in service. Piccadilly, Stalybridge, and Huddersfield all take six-cars. Mossley is five-car, with Greenfield, Marsden, and Slaithwaite being four-car (IIRC).
I think there was a points failure between Leeds and York around 11:00, so down to Network Rail rather than TPE.TPE today: the first train from Leeds to Manchester (Victoria) at 11.00 was a 3-car 185 from Hull (dep 10.00) to Liverpool Lime Street. The next alternative was 45 minutes later and quite a few later services were cancelled.
I caught this first service at Selby (dep 10.32) and it was already full and standing from there. From Leeds it was carrying at least double the number of passengers (compared to seats) and it was difficult to board. Boarding at Huddersfield and Stalybridge was clearly impossible for some people who were left behind and the loading must have been over 200%. Over three quarters of people got off at Manchester Victoria, where we had arrived 8 minutes late.
I then caught the 12.24 TPE service from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool LS (but only as far as Newton-le-Willows). Although this arrived in the platform at 12.09, it was left idling but locked and not opened for passenger use until about 12.20 - there were about 30 people waiting on the platform.
Finally caught a TfW service from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington Bank Quay. This was about a third full.
In general this journey would have been fine (if stilll crowded and with people standing from Huddersfield to Manchester) if the 10.32 Hull to Liverpool (the first train for 2.5 days) had been a six-car 185.
I expect about 200+ people are not going to try rail travel again anytime soon. And they are going to tell at least the same amount of people about how difficult / poor it all was.
Later trains from Leeds to Manchester really fared even worse though, at least in so far as cancellations went:
11.00 - ran (8 minutes late at Manchester V)
11.45 - ran (2 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.00 - ran (35 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.30- cancelled
12.45 - cancelled
13.30 - ran (expected 70 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.45 - ran (expected 60 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.59 - ran (only 17 minutes late at Manchester V!)
So a 90 minute gap roughly in departures from Leeds to Manchester.
I’d suggest to you that, from an engineering perspective, a Tyne & Wear metro train is a much simpler piece of kit than a Class 185.Given the issues with getting units off depot, I can’t help thinking it might be worth TPE’s while doing some clever diagramming so that they can get pairs of 185s in exactly the same place in the maintenance cycle and therefore run the 185s as semi-permanently coupled 6 car sets. The only reason to split them is when one unit requires an exam - getting the place in the maintenance cycle lined up on both units removes that issue. Same system is used on the Tyne & Wear Metro and the same pairs of units often remain coupled for several months at a time.
There isn't even any need for that any more as the auto announcements can now handle it (and do so quite elegantly, making announcements in each individual coach telling passengers how far they need to move forward)Certainly six car trains ran for most of the pandemic, the guard travelling in the rear set and advising passengers at each stop.
That may well be so, I’ve simply written what I observed on my numerous journeys on the route at the time.There isn't even any need for that any more as the auto announcements can now handle it (and do so quite elegantly, making announcements in each individual coach telling passengers how far they need to move forward)
Indeed, making for an expecially difficult day for customers.I think there was a points failure between Leeds and York around 11:00, so down to Network Rail rather than TPE.
No, it hasn't.Regarding running a 3-car train, I think that question has been answered previously.
You say ‘indeed’ but didn’t mention the points failure in your original post.Indeed, making for an expecially difficult day for customers.
No, it hasn't.
Metrocars may well be a simpler piecer of kit but the principle is the same. If both units have been put in the same place in the exam cycle, there’s no need to split them unless one develops a fault, so the same pairs of units could remain coupled for a long period. I struggle to see how this wouldn’t work for 185s or indeed any other type of multiple unit.I’d suggest to you that, from an engineering perspective, a Tyne & Wear metro train is a much simpler piece of kit than a Class 185.
It’s a fantasy to equate the engineering and operational challenges of running an inter-urban diesel unit with a metro car on a self contained network.Metrocars may well be a simpler piecer of kit but the principle is the same. If both units have been put in the same place in the exam cycle, there’s no need to split them unless one develops a fault, so the same pairs of units could remain coupled for a long period. I struggle to see how this wouldn’t work for 185s or indeed any other type of multiple unit.
TPE today: the first train from Leeds to Manchester (Victoria) at 11.00 was a 3-car 185 from Hull (dep 10.00) to Liverpool Lime Street. The next alternative was 45 minutes later and quite a few later services were cancelled.
I caught this first service at Selby (dep 10.32) and it was already full and standing from there. From Leeds it was carrying at least double the number of passengers (compared to seats) and it was difficult to board. Boarding at Huddersfield and Stalybridge was clearly impossible for some people who were left behind and the loading must have been over 200%. Over three quarters of people got off at Manchester Victoria, where we had arrived 8 minutes late.
I then caught the 12.24 TPE service from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool LS (but only as far as Newton-le-Willows). Although this arrived in the platform at 12.09, it was left idling but locked and not opened for passenger use until about 12.20 - there were about 30 people waiting on the platform.
Finally caught a TfW service from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington Bank Quay. This was about a third full.
In general this journey would have been fine (if stilll crowded and with people standing from Huddersfield to Manchester) if the 10.32 Hull to Liverpool (the first train for 2.5 days) had been a six-car 185.
I expect about 200+ people are not going to try rail travel again anytime soon. And they are going to tell at least the same amount of people about how difficult / poor it all was.
Later trains from Leeds to Manchester really fared even worse though, at least in so far as cancellations went:
11.00 - ran (8 minutes late at Manchester V)
11.45 - ran (2 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.00 - ran (35 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.30- cancelled
12.45 - cancelled
13.30 - ran (expected 70 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.45 - ran (expected 60 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.59 - ran (only 17 minutes late at Manchester V!)
So a 90 minute gap roughly in departures from Leeds to Manchester.
I'd probably suggest just cancelling a shedload of trains after running a 3 car first thing, then another 3 car, then some more cancellations.
It’s not fantasy at all, it’s a reasonable concept that can be applied elsewhere. Get two units to the same place in the maintenance cycle, then couple them, and as they’ll both be due exams at the same time the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service. It would largely eliminate the issue of drivers not being able to bring the second unit in from a depot on its own.It’s a fantasy to equate the engineering and operational challenges of running an inter-urban diesel unit with a metro car on a self contained network.
It is a complete fantasy.It’s not fantasy at all, it’s a reasonable concept that can be applied elsewhere. Get two units to the same place in the maintenance cycle, then couple them, and as they’ll both be due exams at the same time the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service. It would largely eliminate the issue of drivers not being able to bring the second unit in from a depot on its own.
As far as self contained goes, Metro isn’t the self contained single depot operation it used to be, it’s now a multi depot operation and all services interact with other non-Metro trains, more so now than Merseyrail which many generally accept as having the same challenges as the main National Rail network. Of course it’s not the same scale as TPE by any means, but to suggest there’s no comparison between the two and nothing that could be adapted from one to suit the other is simply wrong. Different rail networks can often learn from each other even when their operational requirements are very different.
And that would be the only reason to split 185s in such a scenario too. Splitting 185107 and 185137 is an example of such a scenario.It is a complete fantasy.
You’ve already admitted as much in your reply where you say:
“the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service”.
I don’t have a complete list of Class 185 unit diagrams or their maintenance cycles, do you?
I’ve given you an example of how it was necessary to split units in order to avoid cancellation of services. The result was a single unit continuing in service for several days. So, even under your proposal, where you allow for splitting, there would still be instances where 3 car sets would run in service for several days.
I think you show a distinct lack of awareness in looking at the operation of a diesel unit on an inter-urban network during a period of industrial action and comparing it with a tram on what, despite your protests, is a self contained network.
Here are a few questions that you might like to consider:
1. How many of the trams don’t end up on a depot each night?
2. Is there current industrial action/a shortage of drivers on the Metro network?
3.How likely is it that one of a pair of trams will develop a fault, compared with one of a pair of diesel units?
4. How likely is it that a pair of trams will require splitting during the day to avoid service disruption?
5. How likely is it that having been split, the trams will spend several days away from a depot?
I’m sure that if you can find answers to those questions, then TPE will be delighted to follow your suggestion. Perhaps if you could specifically reference the incident that I gave with 185 137, that would be even better.
Many thanks for your response, none of which makes any real difference.And that would be the only reason to split 185s in such a scenario too. Splitting 185107 and 185137 is an example of such a scenario.
On the maintenance point, that’s exactly why you don’t implement such a setup until you’ve got two units in the same place on maintenance cycle, which requires some clever diagramming beforehand. Of course it isn’t going to work if the two units haven’t first gotten to the same place in the maintenance cycle.
1. 20 out of 89 away from Gosforth each night. Yes it’s lower than the percentage of 185s away from Ardwick each night but it’s not an insignificant number away from the home depot either, and some are away multiple nights in a row as with the 185s.
2. No industrial action (yet) but there is a driver shortage, has been one there for many years. Drivers have been leaving faster than they can be recruited, many of them moved to TPE.
3. These metro units have a significantly lower MTIN than 185s so if anything 185s are less likely to require splitting for a fault. Although Metro’s approach is to take both units out of service regardless when one develops a fault (although the ‘good’ unit would quickly find itself back in service as part of another formation) - that’s something I’m not suggesting be carried over to other operators.
4. That’s the big stumbling block, but with enough thought a solution could likely be found to make it work on TPE. It’s something you take and adapt, rather than copy like for like without adaptations and expect to work anyway.
5. It’s rare but happens. Units have been away from depot for more than a week at a time during the most severe disruption. The service has usually fell apart by the end of it but splits and reformations will be done to keep the service running as much as possible.
Using your example with 185137, splitting it from 185107 was the best plan of action and I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. My idea was to reduce the number of short-forms that are solely as there hasn’t been a driver to take the second unit off Ardwick, which such occasions have been reported in this thread. I’m well aware it wouldn’t completely remove the short-forms but it could reduce them, potentially by a considerable amount.
Don't be ridiculous. This is clearly a hobby horse of yours; there's no reason why proposed 'quasi-permanent' coupling shouldn't work in most circumstances.Many thanks for your response, none of which makes any real difference.
Yes, by all means, insist that Class 185s are all (semi?) permanently coupled, but the downside will be a reduction in operational flexibility, something that in the current climate will result in even more cancellations.
Taking your replies in turn:
1. I have absolutely no knowledge of Metro diagrams, so I’m happy to concede that they might spend a comparable number of nights away from a depot.
2. So, no industrial action or rest day working ban, so you can’t really compare.
3. Why would you expect a Metro tram to run as many miles as a Class 185? Using your reasoning, perhaps the Metro has something to learn from TPE and might stop taking both trams out of service?
4. You say ‘with enough thought a solution could be found’ (to units operating as 3 car due to service disruption). What are your specific proposals? I’d certainly be interested to hear them. You’ve ducked out of saying how the 185 137 situation could/should have been resolved. I’m happy to give you another chance.
5. Interesting that you want TPE to model themselves on a service that ‘usually fell apart by the end of’ (service disruption).
Interesting that you agree that the best course of action was to split 185 137 from 185 107 and yet still insist on arguing for reduced operational flexibility.
I expect if TPE did follow the ‘never split a 185 pair’ then the forum would soon fill up with ‘why couldn’t they split the 6 car and run both services’.
So, just to clarify, in which scenarios would you permit Class 185s to be split? I think you’ve already agreed in the case where service disruption would lead to a train being cancelled. As mentioned, I don’t work for TPE, but observation on the ground would suggest this is a major cause of using 3 car in place of 6 car.
I assume you also wouldn’t object if a 3 car worked in place of a 6 car due to one of the sets requiring additional maintenance.
So, in summary, I think you’ve admitted that your proposal is nonsense.
A common refrain, but new ideas are far too often dismissed in the rail industry. In this particular case, semi-permanent coupling of 185s is a non-starter, but that's not to say that there isn't room for improvement in other areas.You can always chuck your hat into the ring. I'm sure train planning would love your can do attitude
Unfortunately not - whilst it'd be fine en-route (C-ASDO ensures only the relevant coaches' doors are released), it generally wouldn't work in terms of platforming at the terminus stations (Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield and Leeds).It’s been said time and time again that there shouldn’t be 3 car sets at all, as TPE are awash with rolling stock. They should always be formed into 6 car formations
Would the Huddersfield stoppers be able to run as a 6 car with the rear 3 locked out?
I think the point being made is that whilst it might be fine in principle, there are always going to be circumstances where splitting a set is the 'least worst' option - e.g. the cancellation of an inbound service, as has been explained by @sjpowermacDon't be ridiculous. This is clearly a hobby horse of yours; there's no reason why proposed 'quasi-permanent' coupling shouldn't work in most circumstances.
Perhaps you would like to justify your opinion?Don't be ridiculous. This is clearly a hobby horse of yours; there's no reason why proposed 'quasi-permanent' coupling shouldn't work in most circumstances.
Whilst I agree the service has seen a lot of cancellations this afternoon, I don’t think your post is accurate.Frankly, whether TPE run 3 or 6 coach trains is immaterial to most travellers between Sheffield and Manchester at present. EMR and TPE have been missing in action from far too.many services, especially today.
Northern's 2 and 3 car 195s must have been crush loaded taking all the load between TPEs 13.09 and EMRs 20.29 - but Northern also cancelled their 15.14 and 18.14!
No wonder a user writes on another forum "Three times I would have used it (a train) this week... and didn't because I couldn't and now in the future I wouldn't. "