TPE additional stock order - speculation

[SuperNova]

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

Given significant works on TRU begin next year, and is set to last the entire decade, the timetable will be what it can be with an array of diversionary routes.

 

[YorksLad12]

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?

Ish. TPE taking over Leeds - Huddersfield meant Northern could redeploy stock slightly but also meant that TPE were down two units which could have been used for strengthening elsewhere. The transfer was part of the franchise agreements, I think, and so they went ahead despite not needing to happen.

The interesting question is what will happen post-TRU. Will the routes revert to Northern, who will run them with 331s, or will they stay with TPE who will need to find smaller units (an 802 or Mk5a set on a local stopping service is overkill)?

 

[cslusarc]

Has TPE ever run double 802s (10-car) or tripple 185s (9-car) in revenue service? If not, where can they?

 

[507020]

Has TPE ever run double 802s (10-car) or tripple 185s (9-car) in revenue service? If not, where can they?

Don’t forgot double 397s or 350s. On the WCML and ECML where they get Pendolinos, Double Voyagers and 80xs, full length 80xs and IC225 sets, basically anywhere they run proper InterCity stock, the platforms are long enough for double TPE formations.

I don’t think they have, but they definitely should. I’ve been stood all the way to Carlisle on a 397 (and the only reason I wasn’t stood all the way to Scotland was that I was only going to Carlisle!)

 

[SuperNova]

Don’t forgot double 397s or 350s. On the WCML and ECML where they get Pendolinos, Double Voyagers and 80xs, full length 80xs and IC225 sets, basically anywhere they run proper InterCity stock, the platforms are long enough for double TPE formations.

I don’t think they have, but they definitely should. I’ve been stood all the way to Carlisle on a 397 (and the only reason I wasn’t stood all the way to Scotland was that I was only going to Carlisle!)

Bit difficult to fit a 10 car 397 at Man Airport.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The interesting question is what will happen post-TRU. Will the routes revert to Northern, who will run them with 331s, or will they stay with TPE who will need to find smaller units (an 802 or Mk5a set on a local stopping service is overkill)?

Even if it returns to Northern (as I think it should, assuming TOCs remain a thing), I wouldn't assume 331s. By the time Huddersfield to Leeds is fully wired, 331s may no longer be flavour of the month for Northern. Hopefully some common sense will prevail and the country will prioritise things like level boarding.

Has TPE ever run double 802s (10-car) or tripple 185s (9-car) in revenue service? If not, where can they?

Not aware of any 9-car 185s even as ECS, but I don't think there's anything preventing it from a technical standpoint. Most routes couldn't take 3x185s at least at some stations. Maybe the Scottish WCML routes could have done so if there had been a need, but it would have to start from Piccadilly P13&14 or Victoria, so would have needed an amendment to the standard timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bit difficult to fit a 10 car 397 at Man Airport.

That needs dealing with. The future is South East train lengths everywhere. It is plain to see the significant suppressed demand caused by overcrowded short trains.

 

[mike57]

That needs dealing with. The future is South East train lengths everywhere. It is plain to see the significant suppressed demand caused by overcrowded short trains.

A lot of the TPE woes stem from the fact that there too many short trains. 4tph should be adequate between Leeds and Manchester with one each to Hull, Scarborough, Middlb'gh and Newcastle at the eastern end and two each to Liverpool and Manchester Airport at the western end. (or just terminate into the low numbers at Pic via Guide Bridge and provide a shuttle from Pic to the Airport). If you kill off the minor stops on the core route, leaving just York, Leeds, Huddersfield and the two Manchesters for the TPE services then I wonder what the longest unit that will fit. The minor stops at the eastern end beyond York/Leeds need a proper way of handling trains longer than platforms, surely a robust way of dealing with it can be found, the current door opening restrictions work, the only issue seems to be communicating it to the passengers. There are already too many announcements, so displays in each carriage seem to be the right way. Once you are back to 4tph then threading the stoppers through to support the smaller stations becomes easier.

 

[RailWonderer]

A lot of the TPE woes stem from the fact that there too many short trains.

No, a big problem is the Manchester Cleethorpes being every two hours. I understand there is a shortage of drivers but I've found myself relying on the Northern 170 for the Sheffield Doncaster leg and no doubt people are driving instead.

That needs dealing with. The future is South East train lengths everywhere. It is plain to see the significant suppressed demand caused by overcrowded short trains.

The North simply does not have the level of demand for 8, 10 and 12 cars everywhere although formations should be longer than they are now on a lot of routes but it is the service frequency cuts that are taking their toll mostly.

 

[DanNCL]

8 car 350s certainly made the odd booked appearances on Manchester - Scotland services, but other than those I can't think of any regular workings of anything more than 6 cars on TPE during the privatisation era. There has been at least one 10 car 802 working, but that was simply to reposition a unit and because of the platform length issues the rear set was locked out of use.

The North simply does not have the level of demand for 8, 10 and 12 cars everywhere although formations should be longer than they are now on a lot of routes but it is the service frequency cuts that are taking their toll mostly.

A significant chunk of The North would have the demand for 8 car trains if they were provided. Even most of the quieter routes in The North could easily sustain 4 car trains. The North has so much surpressed demand, it would effectively be a case of provide the extra carriages and people would very quickly fill them up.

 

[mike57]

No, a big problem is the Manchester Cleethorpes being every two hours. I understand there is a shortage of drivers but I've found myself relying on the Northern 170 for the Sheffield Doncaster leg and no doubt people are driving instead.

To be fair I was refering to the TPE North Leeds Manchester route, where attempts to increase the service beyond 4 fasts per hour have resulted in an unstable timetable. Rather than trying to push more trains through a bottleneck I think longer trains are the answer.

I suspect the problems on the Manchester - Sheffield and beyond route are different, but 1 per two hours is not sufficent. Where the train length v frequency equation should shift towards longer is where frequency is 2 tph or better, at which point further capacity would be better delivered by longer trains.

 

[Flinn Reed]

What would happen to the 397s if withdrawn?

If some of the rolling stock is to be cascaded to another operator, perhaps it might make more sense to release the more standard 802s, then order more Mk5s?

More generally, I wonder why TPE didn't choose to order a single type in the first place for standardisation? All of their routes require a similar type of train, only really varying in number of cars, and whether they are diesel/electric/bi-mode. Also seems odd to have replaced the majority but kept a small number of 185s in service, rather than having a fully Nova fleet.

 

[skyhigh]

More generally, I wonder why TPE didn't choose to order a single type in the first place for standardisation?

It was supposed to allow a faster introduction due to Hitachi having a full order book.

Also seems odd to have replaced the majority but kept a small number of 185s in service

All 185s are still in service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The North simply does not have the level of demand for 8, 10 and 12 cars everywhere although formations should be longer than they are now on a lot of routes but it is the service frequency cuts that are taking their toll mostly.

Not all trains. But there absolutely are TPE WCML services which could do with being 10.397, and Manchester Airport station effectively prevents that. Extending the platforms would also allow two 397s/80x in the same platform, increasing flexibility to what it was in the days of 2-car all round.

What would happen to the 397s if withdrawn?

If some of the rolling stock is to be cascaded to another operator, perhaps it might make more sense to release the more standard 802s, then order more Mk5s?

More generally, I wonder why TPE didn't choose to order a single type in the first place for standardisation? All of their routes require a similar type of train, only really varying in number of cars, and whether they are diesel/electric/bi-mode. Also seems odd to have replaced the majority but kept a small number of 185s in service, rather than having a fully Nova fleet.

The reason was that Hitachi weren't in a position to supply them quickly enough.

 

[mike57]

Not all trains. But there absolutely are TPE WCML services which could do with being 10.397, and Manchester Airport station effectively prevents that. Extending the platforms would also allow two 397s/80x in the same platform, increasing flexibility to what it was in the days of 2-car all round.

How much longer platforms would be needed, a quick look at the google view would indicate thet another 150m could be added to the two northern most platforms fairly easily, beyond that it looks like more of a job.

 

[Purple Orange]

Re train lengths in the north, I wouldn’t say south east train lengths are needed, but certainly longer trains at a higher frequency. A station in the urban areas of Manchester & Leeds should at least 4 tph frequencies and some should be 6 or more. Yet as for train lengths, ideally we’d have:

• 7-car 802s on the TPE services that head up the WCML and ECML
• 6-car Northern services on all the Manchester & Leeds services
• Im unsure about the south TPE services, so I’m unsure if 6-car 185s are enough. The Nottingham services should be 6-cars too.

 

[Pete_uk]

When people say that services can't be lengthend because of the length of the platforms it annoys me as the alternative is more services which means more trains, more train crews and more signalling upgrades.

DMUs can have a extra carriage powered by AAs if necessary.

 

[SuperNova]

A lot of the TPE woes stem from the fact that there too many short trains.

Strange how on any thread with TPE we need to go back to the lack of foresight by the DfT. On capacity and length of trains. However, even if 185s were 4 cars (as they should've been) 4tph on the core route wouldn't have held the demand pre-Covid. TPE's pax numbers doubled between 2004 and 2016 and trains were regularly overcrowded throughout the day. Even now, on certain days and times, what's provided isn't enough at peak times as hybrid working resumes. And that's with more seats now in 2022 (1066) than in 2018 (905).

the current door opening restrictions work, the only issue seems to be communicating it to the passengers. There are already too many announcements, so displays in each carriage seem to be the right way.

This does not work. Complaints still regularly occur from those who are on the rear set and aren't in the right carriage on a 185 to alight. Hopefully TRU will properly deal with platform lengths.

More generally, I wonder why TPE didn't choose to order a single type in the first place for standardisation?

Once again, we need to go back to what was in the franchise agreement and the fact that capacity was needed fast. Hitachi couldn't deliver what was required in time, but CAF then didn't deliver remotely on time which caused all sorts of issues at the back end of 2019 and in early 2020. Ironically the pandemic was a saving grace. EOI has gone in on new rolling stock, so expect Hitachi standard fleet for post TRU (and into NPR) timetables.

That needs dealing with. The future is South East train lengths everywhere. It is plain to see the significant suppressed demand caused by overcrowded short trains.

Manchester as a whole needs dealing with. DfT just kick it down the line every time. It truly cannot cope with what is required, even if some demand has been supressed by the effects of the pandemic.

 

[YorksLad12]

This does not work. Complaints still regularly occur from those who are on the rear set and aren't in the right carriage on a 185 to alight. Hopefully TRU will properly deal with platform lengths.

Or, you're in the rear of the rear set and you're told that the train is too long for the platform at Huddersfied, so you move down... and get laughed at by the locals.

 

[Energy]

When people say that services can't be lengthend because of the length of the platforms it annoys me as the alternative is more services which means more trains, more train crews and more signalling upgrades.

DMUs can have a extra carriage powered by AAs if necessary.

Your message doesn't really give a solution to short platforms, they probably annoy Northern and others as well.

Not sure how having a battery car on DMUs solves the platform length problem...

 

[Halish Railway]

Has TPE ever run double 802s (10-car) or tripple 185s (9-car) in revenue service? If not, where can they?

There has been a 10 carriage 802 with the rear set locked out of use.

 

[mike57]

When people say that services can't be lengthend because of the length of the platforms it annoys me as the alternative is more services which means more trains, more train crews and more signalling upgrades.

DMUs can have a extra carriage powered by AAs if necessary.

I think the first step is to properly segregate the local and 'inter city' operations on TPE north. 4 tph 'intercities' stop only at York or Hull/Brough/Selby - Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester - with 2 tph to/from Liverpool. Stop trying to serve Manchester Airport, it just introduces unreliability, terminate the other 2tph into Piccadilly via Guide Bridge. This 4tph fast service is operated by 8/9 car units, apart from Huddersfield platform lengths at the other main stations must be adequate as they already handle trains of this length.

This brings us back to 4tph fast + locals threaded around them, a situation which worked reliably for many years on the current infrastructure, but with a capacity increase from 12 carriages per hour to 32+ between Leeds and Manchester. Local services can then be operated by stock which is suited to the platform lengths of the stations being served and the local nature of service (doors at 1/3rd etc).

That just leaves the smaller stations at the Eastern end. Scarborough works well as a shuttle so dont try and run through, Middlesborough probably wouldn't work as shuttle, but I think the only stations that might present problems are Yarm and Thornaby. A situation where two minor stations affect capacity across a major network isn't acceptable so solutions may not perfect. (travel in the front x coaches for Yarm and Thornaby) Forget about trying to carry on east from Middlesborough.

On the Hull route Selby and Brough already handle 9 car LNER 80x services without major problems.

Northwards from York to Newcastle all the major stops can handle 9 car 80x anyway, which just leaves Chester-le-Street, same comments as Yarm & Thornaby. Transpennine service shouldn't be running north of Newcastle.

This solution delivers enough capacity using the current infrastructure apart from platform length at Huddersfield, which should become a priority task to improve, even before 4 tracking east of Huddersfield, with possibly even a short term temporary solution while improvements are ongoing.

Order extra coaches for the 802s, to increase them to 8/9 coach units, order enough extra 8/9 car units to cover TPE north with 80x units. Two 4/5 car units are no good unless they are through gangwayed. Bin (pass on to anyone who will take them, they are a microfleet and just introduce operational difficulties) the Mk5 + 68s, and keep a few 185s to run the Scarborough shuttle together with a couple of 6/9 car 185s to act as reserve units to cover failures. Remainder of the 185s operate the stoppers on the Leeds Manchester route, and any left after that are deployed elsewhere if anyone wants them. Assuming TOCs remain York Scarborough might sit better with Northern.

When improvements between Dewsbury and Huddersfield are complete you then have a fleet which can take advantage of electrification and improved speeds, so you can look at improvements to journey times, building on a relaible base timetable and more local services if the demand is there.

This solution might not be the cheapest in the short term, but long term it would probably be better value for money. The reduction of TPE services to 4 tph fast also addresses another elephant in the room, staff shortages, TPE are still cancelling trains because of staff shortages. Fewer longer trains need less staff, and this also reduces costs as well. A more robust timetable means less delay repay and overtime when things go wrong, so again helps keep costs down. A standardised fleet reduces training requirements.

The next bit may be heresy but if you can deliver a reliable core timetable on the existing infrastructure do you want to spend the money on the Dewsbury - Huddersfield upgrade, or would you better going for the longer term proper high speed line across the Pennines and diverting the money into that. May be a bit late for that now, but this is a speculative thread.

Sorry if this post has wandered off topic, but I dont see how you can consider new stock on its own, it has be be tied in with a vision of whats needed to deliver a reliable and useful timetable. Its that vision which seems to be sorely lacking on todays railway, with each TOC working in its own silo, and working to support its own 'empire' with no intergration. Hopefully GBR will address the worst aspects, but we will see.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the first step is to properly segregate the local and 'inter city' operations on TPE north. 4 tph 'intercities' stop only at York or Hull/Brough/Selby - Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester - with 2 tph to/from Liverpool. Stop trying to serve Manchester Airport, it just introduces unreliability, terminate the other 2tph into Piccadilly via Guide Bridge. This 4tph fast service is operated by 8/9 car units, apart from Huddersfield platform lengths at the other main stations must be adequate as they already handle trains of this length.

Do you think that Manchester Airport will have a view on this particular aspiration? Do you feel there is not any passenger demand for the longer distance services to there?

 

[mike57]

Do you think that Manchester Airport will have a view on this particular aspiration? Do you feel there is not any passenger demand for the longer distance services to there?

I dont think its ideal, but the infrastructure in the Manchester area isnt adequate. As a passenger I would rather have a service into Manchester Piccadilly with a change onto an an airport shuttle type service with a reliable timetable, i.e check in at the airport at xx:xx therefore I need to be on XX:XX service from say York with sufficent capacity for me to get a seat and somewhere for my luggage, that barring major incidents will arrive on time. If the Airport shuttle is more of a metro type service that is fine, I am not on it long. Routing services via Castelfield has been a disaster with delays, Manchester airport station cannot handle long trains, routing services from the airport via Guide Bridge creates problems at the throat of Man Pic.

The reason passengers are afraid of changing is because timetables are not robust, and they end up not getting to their destination on time. As has been alluded to further up the thread the immediate pre covid timetable was massivley unstable with one minor blip having a major impact across the whole York Leeds Manchester area. When this happens trains then get turned short and Manchester Airport is one of the casulties. Some services will have to terminate at the airport because there are no west facing bays at Piccadilly but TPE north and south dont fall into that category. Really Man Pic to airport would be better as a shuttle with a fast train leaving then a stopper close on its heels, then repeat after say 10 mins.

As a traveller from anywhere in the NE Manchester Victoria is no good as a destination to get to the airport, I have to get a tram to Piccadilly, (fare not included in my ticket) between the two as even pre-covid there were only 2 tph Victoria - Picc - Airport and currently that is reduced to 1tph. The alternative is the shuffle via Salford Crescent. So currently the service from the NE to the airport is less than ideal anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I dont think its ideal, but the infrastructure in the Manchester area isnt adequate. As a passenger I would rather have a service into Manchester Piccadilly with a change onto an an airport shuttle type service with a reliable timetable, i.e check in at the airport at xx:xx therefore I need to be on XX:XX service from say York with sufficent capacity for me to get a seat and somewhere for my luggage, that barring major incidents will arrive on time. If the Airport shuttle is more of a metro type service that is fine, I am not on it long. Routing services via Castelfield has been a disaster with delays, Manchester airport station cannot handle long trains, routing services from the airport via Guide Bridge creates problems at the throat of Man Pic.

Is there both rolling stock with extra luggage capacity and pathway availability for this referred-to shuttle service from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. You do mention a regular timetable. Would the frequency of the shuttle have any effect on the platform requirements at Manchester Airport?

Don't forget there are container freight trains that use the Styal line.

 

[Snow1964]

When people say that services can't be lengthend because of the length of the platforms it annoys me as the alternative is more services which means more trains, more train crews and more signalling upgrades.

DMUs can have a extra carriage powered by AAs if necessary.

Whilst there are stations that are very difficult to do because of over bridges etc, there are many where relatively cheap extensions can be done, and sometimes only need to add a few meters. So I also get annoyed when a short extension is seen as impossible.

I know of multiple stations where less than 25m of platform would allow longer train formations, and in some cases the line is shut whole weekend for other works so cost of closure to put in the extension is virtually nil. Modern machinery can lift in prefabricated parts in hours to make the basic platform, finishing off can be done in slow time overnight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there both rolling stock with extra luggage capacity and pathway availability for this referred-to shuttle service from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. You do mention a regular timetable. Would the frequency of the shuttle have any effect on the platform requirements at Manchester Airport?

Don't forget there are container freight trains that use the Styal line.

There are absolutely loads of spare EMUs. Provided you operate over capacity (e.g. double 331s) luggage can go on the floor/seats if necessary.

 

[Killingworth]

Or, you're in the rear of the rear set and you're told that the train is too long for the platform at Huddersfied, so you move down... and get laughed at by the locals.

Same happens at Sheffield!

 

[mike57]

Is there both rolling stock with extra luggage capacity and pathway availability for this referred-to shuttle service from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. You do mention a regular timetable. Would the frequency of the shuttle have any effect on the platform requirements at Manchester Airport?

Don't forget there are container freight trains that use the Styal line.

The stock issue would have to be addressed, a light refurb and create some luggage areas for some units which would otherwise be scrapped might be a short term solution. Longer term purchase the right units for the service. In terms of paths, 2 TPE north paths per hour would be released, as would one TPE south path if that is still planned to terminate at the airport eventually. Platform wise they always used to use the high numbered but not 13 or 14 platforms for the airport stoppers, and that would seem to make most sense.

A few services will still have to run through to the airport fom elsewhere because of the lack of west facing bays at Manchester, they mainly take the fast paths from the shuttle, so the general principle remains Fast - min headway wait - Stopper - wait x mins and repeat. Early and late when demand is low just run Stoppers and any fasts from the North West beyond Manchester. Freight path during the wait period, the wait period may be different through the hourly cycle. Stoppers take 24 mins roughly fasts 17-18 mins, so aim for a maximum wait at either end of 15 mins, with a worst case journey time of 24mins this gives 40 mins end to end. Add some suitable PIS on every platform at Man Pic 'Next train to Man Airport from platform x in x mins', and show 2nd as well. Do away with internal mainly Northern run internal gate lines at Man Pic. If there is a problem with fare evasion deal with it by other means. Trying to check tickets on people laden down with luggage and possibly only speaking limited English who also have a flight deadline to make is a recipe for frustration and delay.

The whole idea is smooth the flow to the airport, and make it easy from all desinations which run into Manchester. TPE north can then concentrate on the Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds onwards axis, with suitable stock, both in terms of length and design, which will address a lot of the current problems, crucially this solution doesn't need major infrastructure upgrades to work. Because its a max 15 min wait a small delay on your incoming service means you still make your flight because hopefully youve left more than 10 mins leeway on your check in time, thats just common sense.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Platform wise they always used to use the high numbered but not 13 or 14 platforms for the airport stoppers, and that would seem to make most sense.

What is the current usage of platforms 11 and 12? Would a use of either those platforms for an airport shuttle service cause a problem for existing services?