TPE additional stock order - speculation

[Bletchleyite]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-seeking-additional-bi-mode-stock.229236/page-5#post-5584274

Very interesting that LHCS is on the list. They must be much more satisfied with the Mk5s than people on here seem to think - or is there just an enthusiast quite high up in TPE who likes the traditional option?

Wouldn't a UK Siemens "Railjet" be an amazing thing?

Though I expect 80x will be the outcome (and not a bad one at all).

Also very interesting that the size of the proposed fleet differs depending which option is proposed. It seems like the LHCS option is purely additional, but the bi-mode option perhaps replacing something else too e.g. the 185s?

 

[Greybeard33]

Also very interesting that the size of the proposed fleet differs depending which option is proposed. It seems like the LHCS option is purely additional, but the bi-mode option perhaps replacing something else too e.g. the 185s?

Well, the difference between Option 3 (12*LHCS) and Option 1 (25*bi-modes) is 13 units, and there are 13 Mk5A sets. This might suggest a choice between getting another 12 Mk5As, or disposing of the existing micro fleet and replacing them with 13 802s, plus an additional 12!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, the difference between Option 3 (12*LHCS) and Option 1 (25*bi-modes) is 13 units, and there are 13 Mk5A sets. This might suggest a choice between getting another 12 Mk5As, or disposing of the existing micro fleet and replacing them with 13 802s, plus an additional 12!

Interesting.

I wonder if that suggests they're happy with four fleets (3 * Nova + 185) but don't want a fifth? Thus, it'd be OK if the new bi-modes weren't 802s but were something else (e.g. Stadler), but then they'd want to lop off another microfleet (Mk5s)?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Quoted from the "TPE Seeking additional B-mode stock"

Expression of interest now released https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W11/770965949
Three different base order options proposed; 25 x 5 car Bi-modes, 18 x 5 car EMUs and 11 x 5 car Bi-Modes, or 12 x 5 of coaching stock with options for additional units and additional vehicles for 6/7 car formations.
Expected contract start date: April 2023.

The way I very crudely speculate the three options is:

25 x 5 car Bi-modes
means replacing all the 397s and Mk5 LHCS with 802s. Maybe this would be the "sensible option".

18 x 5 car EMUs and 11 x 5 car Bi-Modes
means replacing 185s. Could mean replacing some of the Mk5 LHCS but why bother making a micro fleet even smaller. Really this option has got me scratching my head as where are 18 x 5 car EMUs of any use even if replacing the 397s. Will any more TPE routes get fully electrified in the next few years ?.

12 x 5 of coaching stock with options for additional units and additional vehicles for 6/7 car formations.
means replacing the 397s with Mk5 LHCS propelled by new/existing electric locomotives with a Bi-mode locomotive with more non-electric power being procured at some point in the future when technology has advanced. This allows for more flexibility or formations and traction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

12 x 5 of coaching stock with options for additional units and additional vehicles for 6/7 car formations.
means replacing the 397s with Mk5 LHCS propelled by new/existing electric locomotives with a Bi-mode locomotive with more non-electric power being procured at some point in the future when technology has advanced.

If you're correct with that one (and the numbers certainly add up), I think it would more likely be replacing the 397s with 802s and those 802s with Mk5s, initially diesel but moving towards bi-mode with new locomotives. This would fit with recent trials of 802s on the WCML, and would allow more fleet shuffling for cases where the WCML service is particularly busy, e.g. weekends during the Edinburgh Fringe.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If you're correct with that one (and the numbers certainly add up), I think it would more likely be replacing the 397s with 802s and those 802s with Mk5s, initially diesel but moving towards bi-mode with new locomotives. This would fit with recent trials of 802s on the WCML, and would allow more fleet shuffling for cases where the WCML service is particularly busy, e.g. weekends during the Edinburgh Fringe.

Quite possible. The 802s going up the WCML to Edinburgh was a way of getting them to Craigentinny now that not much (any ?) TPE goes beyond Newcastle towards Edinburgh. Also that leaves them with fleets that are not trapped to wired only routes so diversions are easier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite possible. The 802s going up the WCML to Edinburgh was a way of getting them to Craigentinny now that not much (any ?) TPE goes beyond Newcastle towards Edinburgh. Also that leaves them with fleets that are not trapped to wired only routes so diversions are easier.

TPE will be operating Newcastle-Edinburgh as a shuttle with a single unit to serve Reston (as ScotRail doesn't have any 125mph EMUs and LNER don't want to serve it, I believe) so they could get there that way, but that arrangement isn't likely to be long term, particularly if whatever ScotRail eventually replaces the HSTs with can run at 125 on 25kV.

 

[Greybeard33]

Quoted from the "TPE Seeking additional B-mode stock"


The way I very crudely speculate the three options is:

25 x 5 car Bi-modes
means replacing all the 397s and Mk5 LHCS with 802s. Maybe this would be the "sensible option".

18 x 5 car EMUs and 11 x 5 car Bi-Modes
means replacing 185s. Could mean replacing some of the Mk5 LHCS but why bother making a micro fleet even smaller. Really this option has got me scratching my head as where are 18 x 5 car EMUs of any use even if replacing the 397s. Will any more TPE routes get fully electrified in the next few years ?.

12 x 5 of coaching stock with options for additional units and additional vehicles for 6/7 car formations.
means replacing the 397s with Mk5 LHCS propelled by new/existing electric locomotives with a Bi-mode locomotive with more non-electric power being procured at some point in the future when technology has advanced. This allows for more flexibility or formations and traction.

That assumes that the base order is solely for fleet replacement. But, as I read it, the preamble to the TPE document strongly suggests the purpose is a combination of getting 185s off the North route post-electrification (no DMUs under the wires), plus fleet expansion to enable more frequent services post-TRU:

If the benefits of a more frequent, high performing service are to be fully realised the industry will need to move away from the current focus on diesel operations across the Pennines with rail services using electric traction and digital signalling. In its role as Delivery Partner, TPE will lead the rolling stock market engagement to develop solutions which support continuity of service capacity during the delivery of the infrastructure works and meet the overarching requirements of the TRU Programme for the TPE business. Our focus will be how to best realise the benefits being sought by providing a rolling stock solution which is an integral and optimised component for the whole route upgrade.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/attachments/expressions_of_interest_for_new_trains_jan_2022_rev_9-7-pdf.111809/

I think it is important to look at the optional quantities as well as the base order. These are divided into "Service Options above the Base" (additional 5-car sets) and "Options for additional train config (6 car / 7 car) vehicles".

Option 1 (bi-modes): 25x 5-car base, 16x 5-car options, up to 82 additional vehicles

Option 2a (EMUs): 18x 5-car base, 5x 5-car options, up to 46 additional vehicles, plus
Option 2b (bi-modes): 11x 5-car base, 11x 5-car options, up to 44 additional vehicles

Option 3 (LHCS): 12x 5-car base, 5x 5-car options, up to 34 additional vehicles

In all options the maximum number of additional vehicles is sufficient to extend all the new sets to 7-car, but not to retrofit the existing Novas.

Options 2 has 5 optional sets of EMUs, the same as the Option 3 LHCS options, but Options 1 and 2 both have an additional 11 optional bi-mode sets. This suggests that 5 optional sets are for possible North route service expansion post TRU, but maybe the additional 11 bi-modes might be for 185 replacement on the South route?

 

[Fokx]

Quoted from the "TPE Seeking additional B-mode stock"


The way I very crudely speculate the three options is:

25 x 5 car Bi-modes
means replacing all the 397s and Mk5 LHCS with 802s. Maybe this would be the "sensible option".

I’d assume it’s more likely that the 51x class 185’s would be removed given the point is to operate electric where available.

Liverpool to Stockport and Liverpool/Manchester Airport to York would cover the bulk of the services covered by 185’s

 

[ABB125]

I think TPE is going through a fascinating stage at the moment. First looking at bi-mode locomotives, and now possibly getting more coaching stock!

Note that First Group are looking at "up to 30" new bimode locomotives (plus 5 for GWR), which coincidentally is the same as 13+12+5 coaching sets (existing sets + 12 new + 5 options)

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I think TPE is going through a fascinating stage at the moment. First looking at bi-mode locomotives, and now possibly getting more coaching stock!

Note that First Group are looking at "up to 30" new bimode locomotives (plus 5 for GWR), which coincidentally is the same as 13+12+5 coaching sets (existing sets + 12 new + 5 options)

Did you want to buy an i love FirstGroup t-shirt?

 

[Purple Orange]

I like the idea of replacing the 397 and Mk5a units with 80Xs for the purpose of uniformity and capacity increase

Option 1 (bi-modes): 25x 5-car base, 16x 5-car options, up to 82 additional vehicles

Option 2a (EMUs): 18x 5-car base, 5x 5-car options, up to 46 additional vehicles, plus
Option 2b (bi-modes): 11x 5-car base, 11x 5-car options, up to 44 additional vehicles

Option 3 (LHCS): 12x 5-car base, 5x 5-car options, up to 34 additional vehicles

Under option 1, 2a and 2b if the option for additional vehicles are taken up, could we see all WCML and 4 fast North Trans Pennine services run as 7-car trains with some services doubled 5-car trains if needed?

 

[swt_passenger]

TPE will be operating Newcastle-Edinburgh as a shuttle with a single unit to serve Reston (as ScotRail doesn't have any 125mph EMUs and LNER don't want to serve it, I believe) so they could get there that way, but that arrangement isn't likely to be long term, particularly if whatever ScotRail eventually replaces the HSTs with can run at 125 on 25kV.

At least two TPE units required, and LNER will call once each way.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think TPE is going through a fascinating stage at the moment. First looking at bi-mode locomotives, and now possibly getting more coaching stock!

Note that First Group are looking at "up to 30" new bimode locomotives (plus 5 for GWR), which coincidentally is the same as 13+12+5 coaching sets (existing sets + 12 new + 5 options)

Well spotted. I had wondered where their aspirations for new locomotives fitted in but I never did the arithmetic.

 

[Purple Orange]

Anyone aware of any further updates this issue?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Did you want to buy an i love FirstGroup t-shirt?

That would go well with about 45% of the forum membership and their "80x For Everybody" t-shirts!

 

[matacaster]

That would go well with about 45% of the forum membership and their "80x For Everybody" t-shirts!

Surprised no one has suggested upgraded 442s with pantograph and ac motors for TPE yet.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surprised no one has suggested upgraded 442s with pantograph and ac motors for TPE yet.

Haha! I was more going after the "let's just make everything the ubiquitous Super Hitachi Intercity Train Express" crew. If TPE just had 802s it might be easier for the operator, but it would be utterly boring for railfans. Yes, I know the industry isn't run for the benefit of enthusiasts but I can't understand the mentality of those who want everything to be uniform. Variety is the spice of life after all.

 

[Purple Orange]

Haha! I was more going after the "let's just make everything the ubiquitous Super Hitachi Intercity Train Express" crew. If TPE just had 802s it might be easier for the operator, but it would be utterly boring for railfans. Yes, I know the industry isn't run for the benefit of enthusiasts but I can't understand the mentality of those who want everything to be uniform. Variety is the spice of life after all.

I guess it depends on perspective. Trains, regardless of type, can be boring, but it is the journey itself that is interesting, whether that be the destination, the scenery or the people you are travelling with. Personally I get no joy from the train itself, but it can make my journey worse. I want to see the most environmentally friendly train possible with the required capacity for the job. So for TPE, I think more 802s are perfect for the job.

 

[mike57]

I guess it depends on perspective. Trains, regardless of type, can be boring, but it is the journey itself that is interesting, whether that be the destination, the scenery or the people you are travelling with. Personally I get no joy from the train itself, but it can make my journey worse. I want to see the most environmentally friendly train possible with the required capacity for the job. So for TPE, I think more 802s are perfect for the job.

As a regular TPE user over several incarnations of Trans Pennine Express streching back to the 1980's what I want above anything else is reliability. Since the 2018 timetable meltdown this has been badly lacking. Over the last 3+ years its been so bad that my major concern is 'Will it turn up and get me there (reasonably on time i.e. making any connections)' Shiny new carriages, locomotives, 802s etc, are all very well but if they dont turn up, or dont get me the other end in time to make a connection then they have failed in there primary purpose as public transport. Currently TPE north tmetable is pretty poor hence my post in the timetables thread, and weekends are a no go due to industrial action, and during the week there are still staff shortages. Bearing in mind the disaster that the original introduction of the new units was I think bringing any more combinations in would be bad, so my vote would be to go all 802

 

[Purple Orange]

As a regular TPE user over several incarnations of Trans Pennine Express streching back to the 1980's what I want above anything else is reliability. Since the 2018 timetable meltdown this has been badly lacking. Over the last 3+ years its been so bad that my major concern is 'Will it turn up and get me there (reasonably on time i.e. making any connections)' Shiny new carriages, locomotives, 802s etc, are all very well but if they dont turn up, or dont get me the other end in time to make a connection then they have failed in there primary purpose as public transport. Currently TPE north tmetable is pretty poor hence my post in the timetables thread, and weekends are a no go due to industrial action, and during the week there are still staff shortages. Bearing in mind the disaster that the original introduction of the new units was I think bringing any more combinations in would be bad, so my vote would be to go all 802

Hopefully the december timetable change will aid reliability somewhat, but a uniform fleet on the north Trans Pennine route would help. However the stopping services should probably go to Northern.

 

[507020]

Hopefully the december timetable change will aid reliability somewhat, but a uniform fleet on the north Trans Pennine route would help. However the stopping services should probably go to Northern.

Why? They only went to TPE because of how abysmal it was for all involved when Northern were running Pacers on the North TransPennine route, so a single company could have control of the route rather than a uniform fleet.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why? They only went to TPE because of how abysmal it was for all involved when Northern were running Pacers on the North TransPennine route, so a single company could have control of the route rather than a uniform fleet.

That's part of the reason...

What often seems to be forgotten about the 2018 disaster, is that TPE's franchise promised six trains per hour between Leeds and Manchester. With the current infrastructure the only way to do that was to turn the stoppers either side of Huddersfield into the sixth through service, by joining them. Then there was the idea of "skip-stopping" some of the minor stations to make the timetable work, but this meant that some stations (for example Batley) went from a half-hourly all-stops pattern; to a fast(ish) service followed by a most-stops slow 10-15mins later.

 

[YorksLad12]

Why? They only went to TPE because of how abysmal it was for all involved when Northern were running Pacers on the North TransPennine route, so a single company could have control of the route rather than a uniform fleet.

That's part of the reason...

What often seems to be forgotten about the 2018 disaster, is that TPE's franchise promised six trains per hour between Leeds and Manchester. With the current infrastructure the only way to do that was to turn the stoppers either side of Huddersfield into the sixth through service, by joining them. Then there was the idea of "skip-stopping" some of the minor stations to make the timetable work, but this meant that some stations (for example Batley) went from a half-hourly all-stops pattern; to a fast(ish) service followed by a most-stops slow 10-15mins later.

Also that electrification was due to start in 2018, and it was considered that having all services on that stretch run by the same TOC would be advantageous. Of course, the Leeds-Dewsbury-Brighouse-Man Vic service is still Northern's but the area with the most work would be operated by one TOC, aiding internal and passenger communication.

 

[507020]

That's part of the reason...

What often seems to be forgotten about the 2018 disaster, is that TPE's franchise promised six trains per hour between Leeds and Manchester. With the current infrastructure the only way to do that was to turn the stoppers either side of Huddersfield into the sixth through service, by joining them. Then there was the idea of "skip-stopping" some of the minor stations to make the timetable work, but this meant that some stations (for example Batley) went from a half-hourly all-stops pattern; to a fast(ish) service followed by a most-stops slow 10-15mins later.

It won’t be possible to join the Huddersfield stoppers until the 4 track section is completed through Huddersfield. Why would skip-stop mean Northern should run the services?

Also that electrification was due to start in 2018, and it was considered that having all services on that stretch run by the same TOC would be advantageous. Of course, the Leeds-Dewsbury-Brighouse-Man Vic service is still Northern's but the area with the most work would be operated by one TOC, aiding internal and passenger communication.

Has electrification on the core section between Stalybridge and Heaton Lodge even started yet? Having all services run by the same operator is of course always advantageous (to the point that BR was a good idea) but I don’t think the Wigan service causes as many problems as the lack of a Bradford avoiding line.

The transfer to TPE allowed passengers from intermediate stations who previously had to be insulted with equal amounts of Pacers and cancellations to travel on not only suitable but highly comfortable and fast 185s. That must have also provided a speedup in the timetable and freed up some capacity mustn’t it?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It won’t be possible to join the Huddersfield stoppers until the 4 track section is completed through Huddersfield. Why would skip-stop mean Northern should run the services?

It isn't "impossible" to join the stoppers, it just didn't work when they tried it, as the timetable was untenable because there was so little margin for error. As a result they were split again. The issue is capacity over the core, not a specific problem unique to the stoppers being linked.

I'm not sure what you mean about Northern and skip-stopping though. I never mentioned Northern at all, and am not an advocate of skip-stopping unless it's absolutely the only way to increase capacity. I was talking about the abortive 2018 arrangements which were called "skip-stopping" but East of Huddersfield really just meant that the Northern via Brighouse service no longer served Batley, with the TPE Hull calling there instead.

Once the upgrade and wiring is done, I'd rather the local service between Huddersfield and Leeds be operated as a metro/S-Bahn-type service with appropriate stock, rather than as a quasi-interregional service as per the 2018 plan. I'd say that means it being operated by Northern, but "Northern" might not be a thing by then with GBR.

 

[507020]

It isn't "impossible" to join the stoppers, it just didn't work when they tried it, as the timetable was untenable because there was so little margin for error. As a result they were split again. The issue is capacity over the core, not a specific problem unique to the stoppers being linked.

I'm not sure what you mean about Northern and skip-stopping though. I never mentioned Northern at all, and am not an advocate of skip-stopping unless it's absolutely the only way to increase capacity. I was talking about the abortive 2018 arrangements which were called "skip-stopping" but East of Huddersfield really just meant that the Northern via Brighouse service no longer served Batley, with the TPE Hull calling there instead.

Once the upgrade and wiring is done, I'd rather the local service between Huddersfield and Leeds be operated as a metro/S-Bahn-type service with appropriate stock, rather than as a quasi-interregional service as per the 2018 plan. I'd say that means it being operated by Northern, but "Northern" might not be a thing by then with GBR.

My point which you replied to was that it was “impossible” for Northern to provide a proper stopping service on the line while they had Pacers in their fleet, to the detriment of both passengers and TPE who were trying to operate proper rolling stock.

I never said it is “impossible” to join the stoppers, but that altering the timetable in such away isn’t really possible until after the remodelling and electrification. Skip-stopping increases capacity in such a way that you can run more trains which are less useful, for example Manchester Airport requires a direct service to every single station in the north of England, but it is not possible to run one as well as serving the Styal line stations, so having all but the very fastest TPE Airport services stop at 1 or 2 stations allows a higher frequency to both Manchester and the airport, but not each other, than would otherwise be possible, which is the main problem. I’m not sure this would really work for TransPennine services.

Do you propose a higher frequency Huddersfield - Leeds electric stopping service than Huddersfield - Manchester? They should be able to be joined and overtaken on the 4 track section otherwise.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My point which you replied to was that it was “impossible” for Northern to provide a proper stopping service on the line while they had Pacers in their fleet, to the detriment of both passengers and TPE who were trying to operate proper rolling stock.

I never said it is “impossible” to join the stoppers, but that altering the timetable in such away isn’t really possible until after the remodelling and electrification. Skip-stopping increases capacity in such a way that you can run more trains which are less useful, for example Manchester Airport requires a direct service to every single station in the north of England, but it is not possible to run one as well as serving the Styal line stations, so having all but the very fastest TPE Airport services stop at 1 or 2 stations allows a higher frequency to both Manchester and the airport, but not each other, than would otherwise be possible, which is the main problem. I’m not sure this would really work for TransPennine services.

Do you propose a higher frequency Huddersfield - Leeds electric stopping service than Huddersfield - Manchester? They should be able to be joined and overtaken on the 4 track section otherwise.

The Northern operated stopper worked fine with the fasts at the lower 4tph frequency before 2018. It was only when this change was made that it needed stock with better acceleration... of which the 185s were just about the only option, so it made sense to transfer those services to TPE.
Once the upgrade is done, I'd certainly hope that we'll get 2tph on the Leeds stopper. There's probably a case for that on the Manchester too, and linking them (assuming the paths can be made to work without too much of a dwell at Huddersfield) would help boost ridership too. AIUI the people of Slaithwaite and Marsden quite enjoyed their direct Leeds train on the rare occasions it ran reliably!

 

[Spartacus]

The plan for 6tph went all the way back to when 5tph was being planned, and being in planning at the time a couple of us spent a bit of time working out how, and if, it could be done. The only answer was skip-stopping, and even then we knew the timetable would be delicate to say the least, with non-compliant junction margins and headways. We did manage to make it work a bit better than the timetable that eventually came out, using Huddersfield as a loop for one thing (which was brought in for some services with the recast), and I'm sure we did something else a bit random, but I can't remember exactly what now, probably involving some of the more 'express' services gaining stops at small stations. It was never going to be reliable no matter what was done, and we knew it would self destruct with even relatively small delays, the infrastructure just isn't there to allow it.

Anyhow, back to the stock, it'll be interesting to see if there's any proposals to use Stadler locos, something like a 93 or a cross between that and a 99 would seem to be ideal for the loco hauled route.

 

[mike57]

Hopefully the december timetable change will aid reliability somewhat, but a uniform fleet on the north Trans Pennine route would help. However the stopping services should probably go to Northern.

We are now 4 years on from the original 2018 disaster, and there still seems to be an obsession with 6tph when all previous iterations have proven that it is not reliable. 4tph fast was reliable for many years, with the stoppers threaded around them. If there is insufficent capacity at 4tph go for longer trains. Really as a passenger all I see is TPE not learning from their previous disasters.

It was obvious the 2018 timetable was going to fail, there were easily spotted errors, for example 2 trains crossing at the single Malton platform within minutes of each other. Then the problems caused by trying to train up staff on two new fleets of trains whilst maintaining a service. Guess what, TPE are now looking at introducing yet another fleet. Then there was the obsession with running to Edinburgh via ECML (revenue grab?) diverting resources from the key route of York/Hull - Manchester - Liverpool. The proposed new fleet just seems like a re run of previous problems.

If you think back to around 2015 then the current service is less reliable and journey times are longer, significantly so for some journeys involving a change in Manchester, there are now 3 types of unit running, I was not a fan of 185s for longer journeys, but training requirements have increased for little benefit, and they are now looking at yet another new fleet.

And to cap it all you now have the ongoing industrial dispute which shows little sign of being resolved anytime soon

The reason I highlighted hopefully is that post #29 implies that it will never work reliably and the experience of the last 4 years backs that up.

If I were telling TPE what to do, it would be simple, more 802s, get rid of Mk5s and 185s. (and possibly 397s on WCML operations as well) The 802s are not perfect but a uniform fleet would be easier to manage, and going forwards they are 'electrification ready'. I dont know if once the route is fully wired the number/power of engines could be reduced, to keep some off wire capability but reduce weight and maintenance. TPE could then concentrate on the core route, running 4 tph fast Leeds Manchester, and possibly cascade some 185s to Northern to run the stoppers.

And bear in mind that improvements between Dewsbury and Huddersfield are probably 10 years off completion, so a solution is needed (rolling stock, timetable etc.) now