Future of TransPennine Express?

[dk1]

Ah, new info to me I appreciate the heads up.

Yes, it was to me too.

 

[nr758123]

Birmingham to Leeds via Crewe or Stoke could be interesting

Interesting rather than useful, I'm afraid.

There is already a regular service between Birmingham and Leeds by a shorter and faster route, so I'm not sure what useful purpose this would serve.

It would, however, put an additional service through some already congested locations in the Manchester area - Stockport, Castlefield? reversal at Piccadilly? - and along the North Transpennine route between Stalybridge and Leeds which is full. Which of the current services between Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Leeds would you withdraw to make way for your "interesting" service?

 

[Calum1]

I would if possible combine the Newcastle-Edinburgh and Liverpool-Newcastle routes back together and in the hours Avanti go to Blackpool with a rewrite of the northern WCML obviously fill that gap with the Liverpool-Glasgow route so there's a consistent 2x per hour from Preston to Glasgow

 

[GrandCentral]

x.com

x.com

Have TPE ordered some new trains? I hadn't heard about this.

 

[JamesT]

x.com

x.com

Have TPE ordered some new trains? I hadn't heard about this.

No, see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/802207-hitachi-testing-battery-power-for-transpennine.249321/

 

[TheGuy77]

Some of my ideas:

• Order 30 more Nova 1 units to replace the Nova 2 units, and to cover for the withdrawn Nova 3 units.
• Merge the Liverpool-Newcastle and the Newcastle-Edinburgh services to allow 2tph from Leeds-Scotland, and to provide an alternative to CrossCountry.
• Adjust calling points on some services, for example, on the South Route, call at Widnes and (if happening) Rotherham Masborough instead of Warrington West and Dore & Totley.
• Re/introduce more destinations on the Anglo-Scottish and South routes, such as Blackpool, Lincoln, Windermere and Barrow-in-Furness.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It will all depend on GBR's view of the world with fewer separate TOCs/operators (maybe just one).
TPE won't survive as a separate entity much beyond 2026, nor will any of the other TOCs.
The big northern conundrum is how it will be divided up.

 

[A S Leib]

Re/introduce more destinations on the Anglo-Scottish and South routes, such as Blackpool, Lincoln, Windermere and Barrow-in-Furness.

Apart from (maybe) more Liverpool – Lancaster / Oxenholme services, what would the latter provide which current Northern services don't?

 

[stevieinselby]

Some of my ideas:

• Order 30 more Nova 1 units to replace the Nova 2 units, and to cover for the withdrawn Nova 3 units.
• Merge the Liverpool-Newcastle and the Newcastle-Edinburgh services to allow 2tph from Leeds-Scotland, and to provide an alternative to CrossCountry.
• Adjust calling points on some services, for example, on the South Route, call at Widnes and (if happening) Rotherham Masborough instead of Warrington West and Dore & Totley.
• Re/introduce more destinations on the Anglo-Scottish and South routes, such as Blackpool, Lincoln, Windermere and Barrow-in-Furness.

Why do you want to replace the class 397s with more complex class 802s? The Scotland route from the north-west is entirely on electrified lines, so it makes far more sense to run pure electric trains as they are cheaper and more efficient than bi-modes. If anything, we should be looking at getting pure electrics for the Liverpool to Newcastle and Newcastle to Edinburgh routes (or the through route if you want to link them together), once the core electrification is complete, and then cascading the 802s to run the Hull, Scarborough and Teesside lines.

What is your plan for Blackpool, Lincoln, Windermere and Barrow? Is this in addition to the existing Northern services, or instead of them? The wider you spread the network, the more you're going to import and propagate delays across a bigger area. How much extra ridership do you think you would drum up from additional through services? My guess would be in most cases not very much, and not enough to offset the extra costs of doing so,

 

[skyhigh]

Order 30 more Nova 1 units to replace the Nova 2 units, and to cover for the withdrawn Nova 3 units.

...why?

What are you going to do with the withdrawn units (that as far as I can tell are working perfectly fine) and why do you need bimode for services that run fully on electric?

 

[TheGuy77]

Why do you want to replace the class 397s with more complex class 802s? The Scotland route from the north-west is entirely on electrified lines, so it makes far more sense to run pure electric trains as they are cheaper and more efficient than bi-modes. If anything, we should be looking at getting pure electrics for the Liverpool to Newcastle and Newcastle to Edinburgh routes (or the through route if you want to link them together), once the core electrification is complete, and then cascading the 802s to run the Hull, Scarborough and Teesside lines.

What is your plan for Blackpool, Lincoln, Windermere and Barrow? Is this in addition to the existing Northern services, or instead of them? The wider you spread the network, the more you're going to import and propagate delays across a bigger area. How much extra ridership do you think you would drum up from additional through services? My guess would be in most cases not very much, and not enough to offset the extra costs of doing so,

...why?

What are you going to do with the withdrawn units (that as far as I can tell are working perfectly fine) and why do you need bimode for services that run fully on electric?

Having 2 types of train (185 and 802) would make the fleet simpler as TMD crews will only need to be trained for two types of train, as opposed to three (or back then, four). Also keep in mind that the routes to Redcar/Saltburn, Middlesbrough, Hull, Cleethorpes and Scarborough are all unelectrified, so if a train breaks down on one of these lines, TPE could use any other train in its fleet as all of their trains would run on electrified lines, which works out better than just segregating the fleet for electric and diesel operations. The 397s could go to future Open-Access operators, like Lumo or Virgin Trains.

About Northern, they are too large to manage on their own. So transferring some (but not all) of their routes would help out.

 

[JonathanH]

The 397s could go to future Open-Access operators, like Lumo or Virgin Trains.

The DfT have made it very clear that they are opposed to future open access operators. One thing they will not want to do is make rolling stock available that an open access operator could readily use.

About Northern, they are too large to manage on their own. So transferring some (but not all) of their routes would help out.

Having separate Northern and TPE operations hasn't been a panacea. Under one single umbrella organisation with local management, there could be much improved coordination and a more streamlined passenger operation. There is no need to transfer routes to do that.

What you appear to be arguing for is the sort of operation that existed on the Blackpool and Barrow lines when TPE and Northern both ran services, which really isn't ideal for anyone.

 

[stevieinselby]

Also keep in mind that the routes to Redcar/Saltburn, Middlesbrough, Hull, Cleethorpes and Scarborough are all unelectrified, so if a train breaks down on one of these lines, TPE could use any other train in its fleet as all of their trains would run on electrified lines, which works out better than just segregating the fleet for electric and diesel operations.

The fleet is big enough to sustain separate electric and bi-mode trains for different route groups. LNER don't seem to have had any great resourcing/deployment problems from having some of their trains as pure electric and others as bi-mode as they ordered separate models, as did Avanti with the Evero.

Sure, if they only had two or three diagrams that were pure electric, it would be inadvisable to have a separate microfleet – but with 8 trains needed in service for an hourly service between Liverpool and Newcastle, plus spares, plus the Newcastle to Edinburgh services, (and if they reinstate more journeys to Newcastle), alongside the existing Scotland services, that's plenty to have separate electric and bi-mode fleets. Sure, they might swing the balance for slightly more bi-mode and slightly fewer electric than they strictly need to give them more flexibility, but ultimately it would be more cost effective and efficient than buying a load of more expensive bi-modes to run on fully electrified routes ... which is why no other operator has gone down that route.

 

[yorksrob]

Something relatively cheap an easy that could be done would be to improve connections at Middlesborough for the Whitby line. At the moment, there's a five minute connection for the evening train from Whitby which seems more aspirational than anything, which isn't very helpful for passengers.

 

[TheGuy77]

Revised ideas:

• 15 brand-new Class 397 Nova 2 units for Liverpool-Edinburgh and as extra spares.
• Cascade Class 802 Nova 1 units for unelectrified lines, such as Redcar, Scarborough, Hull and Cleethorpes.
• 15 brand-new Class 802 Nova 1 units to cover for withdrawn Nova 3 units.

 

[JonathanH]

Revised ideas:

• 15 brand-new Class 397 Nova 2 units for Liverpool-Edinburgh and as extra spares.
• Cascade Class 802 Nova 1 units for unelectrified lines, such as Redcar, Scarborough, Hull and Cleethorpes.
• 15 brand-new Class 802 Nova 1 units to cover for withdrawn Nova 3 units.

Isn't there already an outline plan for 29 new units?

29 new trains for Transpennine Express ?

In notes to todays Government announcemen on £3.9bn for Transpennine routes is It will support TransPennine Express in engaging with manufacturers on options for up to 29 new trains to replace the existing diesel fleet, in addition to new trains for local stopping services operated by...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I was getting new units for North West to Scotland they would be 7-8 car. The present ones are way too short.

 

[Grumpy]

Having separate Northern and TPE operations hasn't been a panacea. Under one single umbrella organisation with local management, there could be much improved coordination and a more streamlined passenger operation.

I believe the Strategic Rail Authority hived off TPE as a separate operator just as it was merging operators at Paddington and Liverpool St, with the claimed justification that doing this would improve coordination and streamline passenger operation.
Like arguing that abolishing the over-arching NHS Quango will lead to improved democratic control and save costs, whilst at the same time creating an over-arching railway Quango. One could become cynical

 

[quantinghome]

I believe the Strategic Rail Authority hived off TPE as a separate operator just as it was merging operators at Paddington and Liverpool St, with the claimed justification that doing this would improve coordination and streamline passenger operation.
Like arguing that abolishing the over-arching NHS Quango will lead to improved democratic control and save costs, whilst at the same time creating an over-arching railway Quango. One could become cynical

Paddington and Liverpool St operations have a clear single main line and branch structure, and with apologies to Bristol, Norwich and Exeter there are no non-London suburban networks to speak of. Operationally it makes sense to combine them. No one is seriously suggesting bringing back Wessex Trains, are they?

Northern + Transpennine by contrast has numerous routes which could be considered main lines, several secondary routes and significant commuter networks. It makes sense to separate the intercity routes. To be honest I would be looking split it further and 'do a Merseyrail' for Greater Manchester, West Yorks, South Yorks and the North-East.

 

[Pete_uk]

I think TPE is a great brand that is associated with fast comfortable trains and as such I believe that keeping the name would be a good idea.

 

[irish_rail]

. No one is seriously suggesting bringing back Wessex Trains, are they?

An awful name for a franchise, which ran very little in Wessex. Devon, Cornwall and South Wales being the greater majority of the operation, "Celtic trains" would have been a more accurate moniker.

 

[dk1]

I think TPE is a great brand that is associated with fast comfortable trains and as such I believe that keeping the name would be a good idea.

Me too!!!

 

[LittleAH]

Having separate Northern and TPE operations hasn't been a panacea. Under one single umbrella organisation with local management, there could be much improved coordination and a more streamlined passenger operation. There is no need to transfer routes to do that.

What you appear to be arguing for is the sort of operation that existed on the Blackpool and Barrow lines when TPE and Northern both ran services, which really isn't ideal for anyone.

Having one singular Northern operation hasn’t been a panacea. Despite having one operation, the west and east sides are completely different, resulting in routes being completely abandoned on a Sunday.

The reality is, any new structure will be decided by GBR. My worry is that any return to sectorisation will not focus on East-west and cross border routes.

 

[stevieinselby]

I believe the Strategic Rail Authority hived off TPE as a separate operator just as it was merging operators at Paddington and Liverpool St, with the claimed justification that doing this would improve coordination and streamline passenger operation.

TPE has been a stand-alone franchise separate from Northern for over 20 years!
Suburban operations at Paddington and Liverpool Street were merged because they were joined into a single service.
There is absolutely zero point of comparison or similarity between the two situations.

 

[SamCam]

Northern + Transpennine by contrast has numerous routes which could be considered main lines, several secondary routes and significant commuter networks. It makes sense to separate the intercity routes. To be honest I would be looking split it further and 'do a Merseyrail' for Greater Manchester, West Yorks, South Yorks and the North-East.

Apart from further separating out suburban services, I wonder if it is worth considering whether there are any routes that would be better off transferred from TPE to Northern or vice versa? E.g. the fast Leeds-Manchester via Bradford could fit better under Transpennine, and there is arguably little justification for intercity-standard trains to be serving Redcar.

 

[A S Leib]

there is arguably little justification for intercity-standard trains to be serving Redcar

But there is for Middlesbrough, and I think Redcar has a larger population than any of the settlements on Avanti's Holyhead route west of Chester, or west of Plymouth except Redruth / Camborne (with both of those examples, however, having longer journeys to get to the "main" network).

 

[quantinghome]

Apart from further separating out suburban services, I wonder if it is worth considering whether there are any routes that would be better off transferred from TPE to Northern or vice versa? E.g. the fast Leeds-Manchester via Bradford could fit better under Transpennine,

You speak of great mysteries. A fast Leeds-Manchester via Bradford train, what is this mythical beast?

If memory serves, back in the Arriva Trains Northern days, Scarborough-Leeds-Bradford-Blackpool was branded under the Transpennine Express banner.

and there is arguably little justification for intercity-standard trains to be serving Redcar.

It serves it for operational convenience, as are a number of other small towns on the intercity network.

 

[Grumpy]

Northern + Transpennine by contrast has numerous routes which could be considered main lines, several secondary routes and significant commuter networks. It makes sense to separate the intercity routes. To be honest I would be looking split it further and 'do a Merseyrail' for Greater Manchester, West Yorks, South Yorks and the North-East.

I believe the SRA view was that the TOCs it merged were, between them, either the exclusive or predominant users of some routes and stations. Merging them one single umbrella organisation was seen as a means of facilitating much improved coordination and a more streamlined passenger operation. They don't seem to have problems running Inter-City and local services. You can still present the public with a separate "Trans Pennine", as indeed Arriva did

 

[ScottGallagher]

I believe the SRA view was that the TOCs it merged were, between them, either the exclusive or predominant users of some routes and stations. Merging them one single umbrella organisation was seen as a means of facilitating much improved coordination and a more streamlined passenger operation. They don't seem to have problems running Inter-City and local services. You can still present the public with a separate "Trans Pennine", as indeed Arriva did

I think was more one TOC per Intercity London Terminus as an aim, they were not around long enough to complete that vision as we could have seen one operator at both Euston and King's Cross (bar sleepers and open access).

Would the TPE bit have had the new stock it has if it were part of Northern in 2016, I'm doubtful, but in theory it could just be a brand.

 

[quantinghome]

I believe the SRA view was that the TOCs it merged were, between them, either the exclusive or predominant users of some routes and stations. Merging them one single umbrella organisation was seen as a means of facilitating much improved coordination and a more streamlined passenger operation. They don't seem to have problems running Inter-City and local services. You can still present the public with a separate "Trans Pennine", as indeed Arriva did

GWR or Greater Anglia are like large single trees, with branches connecting into the main trunk.

Northern+Transpennine isn't a single tree. It's an orchard, with the Transpennine routes being the largest trees in it. If it's all managed as one, the big trees get the attention and the smaller trees in the orchard are at risk of being neglected.