TPE Rolling Stock - Post Diggle Line Electrification

[Halish Railway]

TPE strategically orders bi-mode Class 802's and Push-Pull Coaching Stock so that it could be reorganised as follows;
Push-Pull Stock with electric Loco operating fully electrified routes
Class 802's operating routes not electrified throughout e.g. Scarborough, Hull and Middlesbrough.

Obviously there isn't enough bi-modes to go around so more stock will have to be ordered.

I made this thread to start a conversation on future stock.

 

[ash39]

Hull is still planned to be served solely by 185's when all the new stock is in place.

Full TPE core electrification is a long way off, if it ever happens at all. The landscape will be a lot different by then, new stock will probably be required anyway due to growth.

Your thread is probably a decade premature, but my best guess would be this (assuming York-Manchester is wired in full)

• 68's to remain on mk5 sets, switched to Hull services to displace remaining 185’s
• 802's to replace loco hauled sets on Scarborough/Middlesbrough services
• New build EMU's to replace displaced 802's on fully electric services

 

[D365]

Your thread is probably a decade premature, but my best guess would be this (assuming York-Manchester is wired in full)

Any suggestions for south TPE?

 

[DanNCL]

I can't see the locomotive hauled stock being transferred to the Newcastle/Edinburgh route, even after Manchester to York is wired, as they would need a new build 125 mph loco to haul them, and none of the manufacturers are likely to design one just for one small order like this. What I think is more likely is that more 397s would be ordered for the Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the 802s being used to displace the locomotive hauled stock on to Hull/South TPE services, in turn allowing the 185s to be transferred to another operator (possibly Northern?)

(I'm sure someone will suggest something ridiculous such as using redundant 373 power cars hauling Mark 5s as an alternative; it won't ever happen)

 

[Alan2603]

With TPE planning to build a depot at Scarborough for the Mk5 carriages & Class 68's;

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/train-stabling-sidings-for-scarborough.157881/

It would tend to suggest that the Mk5 pull/push trains are staying on that route (as well as Middlesbrough).

I don't believe (nor have I read anywhere) that the plan is to switch the Mk5/68's with the 802's at any future point on the Scarborough/Middlesbrough services. Plus the higher top speed of the 802's suits the ECML north of York to Newcastle and beyond better than the class 68 hauled stock.

 

[MG11]

Any suggestions for south TPE?

From what I gather, the Class 185 Desiros will continue to operate this route and will be worked in multiple a selected peak times (6 coaches, comprising of 2 185s), this will begin to be implimented after the stop gap MK3 hauls begin to operate else where on the TPE network.

 

[sprinterguy]

Halish Railway is clearly an optimistic sort.

The Transpennine franchise agreement stipulates that the manufacturer of their new EMUs provides an option for 7, 15 or 22 additional 5, 6 or 8 (but not combinations thereof) carriage units, so if TPE North electrification does get pushed through then it seems virtually certain that these additional class 397s will be provided to operate it.

The franchise agreement also specifically allows that the class 68 locos can be replaced with class 88s should the routes be electrified.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

While the current TPE rolling stock plan is implemented over the next 3 years or so, the focus will surely be on what NR upgrades are going to happen to TP routes, and when, rather than what a future rolling stock scenario will be.
By then (2024+) we will be into the next franchise, and an HS2 world.
Until then, the DfT simply wants TPE to deliver its promised franchise premiums....

 

[Philip]

Perhaps an idea for TPE in the short term could be to place an order for more 3-coach 195s to be built for them and to use them on the Hull and Leeds shuttle services, without first class. This would either provide a bigger fleet of off-lease 185s for another operator to take on, or units for Liverpool-Nottingham should it be split and TPE take it on. I don't think FC is necessary for the Leeds and Hull semi-fast services.

 

[55z]

Dont understand all this speculation when NO announcement has been made about electrification or up grade of north TPEXP route. As for operting 6car 185's on Hull to Manchester Piccadilly stoppers and the new Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly stoppers it will be interesting to see how TPEXP will operate from May 2018, as most local stations between Leeds and Stalybridge cannot take 6 car units and SDO is not particularly useful although there is some platform lengthening to be done but might be difficult at some stations to accomodate 6 car 23 metre units.

 

[ash39]

With TPE planning to build a depot at Scarborough for the Mk5 carriages & Class 68's;

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/train-stabling-sidings-for-scarborough.157881/

It would tend to suggest that the Mk5 pull/push trains are staying on that route (as well as Middlesbrough).

Certainly for the medium term yes but this thread is talking about many years down the line.

Whilst the Scarborough facility will be built and optimised for maintaining mk5 stock, there's no reason it can't or won't change in the future. The York TPE depot currently maintains 185's, but they will no longer be running through York in a few years' time. I read Northern's new 170 fleet would be maintained there but not sure how accurate that is.

 

[Philip]

Dont understand all this speculation when NO announcement has been made about electrification or up grade of north TPEXP route. As for operting 6car 185's on Hull to Manchester Piccadilly stoppers and the new Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly stoppers it will be interesting to see how TPEXP will operate from May 2018, as most local stations between Leeds and Stalybridge cannot take 6 car units and SDO is not particularly useful although there is some platform lengthening to be done but might be difficult at some stations to accomodate 6 car 23 metre units.

This is partly why I thought about a follow-on order for 195s. To revise my initial thought, perhaps a mix of 2 and 3 coach units as Northern have ordered, to allow for greater flexibility in doubling up units. I guess the decision was made to use doubled-up 185s before 195s were thought of, but I really think they may be a better option for the semi-fasts.

 

[sprinterguy]

I guess the decision was made to use doubled-up 185s before 195s were thought of, but I really think they may be a better option for the semi-fasts.

The Transpennine and Northern franchises commenced on the same date, and the bidding processes ran pretty much concurrently. CAF could have offered First Transpennine the class 195 at around the same time as they did with Northern, if First had any interest in procuring any rather than the class 397s and loco hauled sets that they did do. And why would they, when there's already a ready made fleet of 3-car DMUs specially designed for the route operating over it, with purpose built maintenance facilities in place?

The problem with threads like this is the massive disconnect between speculation and reality.

Whilst the Scarborough facility will be built and optimised for maintaining mk5 stock, there's no reason it can't or won't change in the future.

Indeed: As only a light maintenance depot, I wouldn't have thought that it would have too much equipment specific to the maintenance of class 68 locos and stock, and being seemingly operated by Transpennine Express, rather than CAF, there shouldn't be any problem stabling there whatever future stock the franchisee feels like - Though based on the terms of the franchise agreement, that other CAF product, the class 397, seems the most likely alternative subject to electrification.

The York TPE depot currently maintains 185's, but they will no longer be running through York in a few years' time. I read Northern's new 170 fleet would be maintained there but not sure how accurate that is.

Are Siemens planning on moving out of the depot completely, then? I suppose it would make sense, with none of their fleet passing the site any more - Though it's not a million miles away from the Hull - Manchester route that will still be served by 185s.

 

[AndrewE]

I can't see the locomotive hauled stock being transferred to the Newcastle/Edinburgh route, even after Manchester to York is wired, as they would need a new build 125 mph loco to haul them, and none of the manufacturers are likely to design one just for one small order like this.

Aren't the 91s likely to have been displaced by then? (125service/140 design mph.) ... or have I missed another proposed use for them?
AS they were designed for the ECML maybe they can't climb hills!

 

[edwin_m]

Aren't the 91s likely to have been displaced by then? (125service/140 design mph.) ... or have I missed another proposed use for them?
AS they were designed for the ECML maybe they can't climb hills!

They will be getting on for 35 years old by the earliest date any TP electrification could be completed end to end.

The question about next generation of traction can't really be decided until we know what Northern Powerhouse looks like, whether the Government is actually committed to funding it, and what that means for electrification of the existing route. Potentially the main Liverpool-Airport-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle route (possibly with extensions to Edinburgh) would go over to some sort of high speed set with the bi-modes being cascaded to Scarborough and Hull workings using the existing route between Manchester and Leeds.

 

[Philip]

The Transpennine and Northern franchises commenced on the same date, and the bidding processes ran pretty much concurrently. CAF could have offered First Transpennine the class 195 at around the same time as they did with Northern, if First had any interest in procuring any rather than the class 397s and loco hauled sets that they did do. And why would they, when there's already a ready made fleet of 3-car DMUs specially designed for the route operating over it, with purpose built maintenance facilities in place?

The problem with threads like this is the massive disconnect between speculation and reality.

3-car DMUs which are seemingly onto a loser on some of the routes they are being kept for; double up to increase capacity but face platform length issues; run in single formation and face overcrowding problems. These are ideas which seem to hold valid reason, rather than speculation.

 

[pemma]

The TPE franchise agreement includes the following options:
- Replacing 68s with electric locos
- Ordering brand new electric only multiple units
- Returning some of the 29 x 185s retained

 

[sprinterguy]

Aren't the 91s likely to have been displaced by then? (125service/140 design mph.) ... or have I missed another proposed use for them?
AS they were designed for the ECML maybe they can't climb hills!

No mention of the potential use of class 91s within the franchise agreement - Just class 88s. Unsure why TPE would view the prospect of much older, less reliable locomotives as appealing when they'll already have a perfectly serviceable fleet of 125/140mph bi-mode units operating Newcastle and Edinburgh services. And by the time the next franchise rolls around the class 91s will be dead and gone from the ECML for at least two years.

 

[sprinterguy]

3-car DMUs which are seemingly onto a loser on some of the routes they are being kept for; double up to increase capacity but face platform length issues; run in single formation and face overcrowding problems. These are ideas which seem to hold valid reason, rather than speculation.

But the comment that "I guess the decision was made to use doubled-up 185s before 195s were thought of" is chronologically incorrect and clearly at odds with the facts as we know them. And suggesting that Transpennine Express might procure class 195 units when there is a costed, published and clearly stated train plan for the duration of the franchise is purely speculative.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Perhaps an idea for TPE in the short term could be to place an order for more 3-coach 195s to be built for them and to use them on the Hull and Leeds shuttle services, without first class. This would either provide a bigger fleet of off-lease 185s for another operator to take on, or units for Liverpool-Nottingham should it be split and TPE take it on. I don't think FC is necessary for the Leeds and Hull semi-fast services.

Or just give these services to Northern?

 

[Philip]

Or just give these services to Northern?

That would make even more sense, although Northern would still need the follow-on order for 195s.

 

[Chester1]

The TPE franchise agreement includes the following options:
- Replacing 68s with electric locos
- Ordering brand new electric only multiple units
- Returning some of the 29 x 185s retained

Unless the franchise is extended I don't think that anything will be done to reduce running under the wires if electrification starts and completes before the end of the franchise.

Id bet that the next franchise or direct award gets rid of the Mark Vs. The DfT will want them to move elswhere to cover electrification cut backs and have an extra order new rolling stock during a period when the UK factories might not have enough work. An alternative to 397s would be 801s. If Hitachi lacks work for Newton Ayliffe then they might compete on price with CAF. Either option would reduce the diversity of the fleet.

 

[IanXC]

Perhaps an idea for TPE in the short term could be to place an order for more 3-coach 195s to be built for them and to use them on the Hull and Leeds shuttle services, without first class. This would either provide a bigger fleet of off-lease 185s for another operator to take on, or units for Liverpool-Nottingham should it be split and TPE take it on. I don't think FC is necessary for the Leeds and Hull semi-fast services.

So not content with the downgrade in terms journey time of Hull's only express service to Manchester, you are proposing to downgrade the standard of service provided too - this idea would additionally damage the service between Hull and its closest major city, Leeds.

Quite why the DfT felt that York needed 4 fast services per hour to Manchester, and Hull, a much bigger city, with a much more populous surrounding area, didn't need one at all - and can make do with 1 semi fast train per hour I don't think we will ever know. But I think it would be entirely unacceptable to yet further downgrade the service!

Or just give these services to Northern?

You mean entirely undo the change that is about to be implemented in May 2018?!

 

[Philip]

Is there that a big a market for through journeys between Hull and Manchester? Is it, for example, much bigger than the market for through journeys from Cleethorpes to Manchester?

I can understand Hull to Leeds needing a good quality and fast service, but Hull to Manchester is the best part of 70 miles in distance and doesn't seem essential for retaining fast through services.

 

[IanXC]

Is there that a big a market for through journeys between Hull and Manchester? Is it, for example, much bigger than the market for through journeys from Cleethorpes to Manchester?

I can understand Hull to Leeds needing a good quality and fast service, but Hull to Manchester is the best part of 70 miles in distance and doesn't seem essential for retaining fast through services.

Vastly bigger market than Cleethorpes. In fact, the reason why the DfT were looking to cut the Cleethorpes to Manchester link was to redirect the South TPE service to Hull!

I don't think many would question that Hull has a much stronger case for a good link to Manchester than Scarborough or Middlesbrough.

 

[47802]

I wouldn't be surprised if First looked at 195 as an alternative to the Class 68's, delivery timescales would have likely been an issue as per First's probable preferred option of a single fleet of AT300's.

As for the future well I would put the Loco Hauled trains as most likely to get the boot in the event of electrification but as usual there are too many if's and buts for any sensible speculation at this stage.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Vastly bigger market than Cleethorpes. In fact, the reason why the DfT were looking to cut the Cleethorpes to Manchester link was to redirect the South TPE service to Hull!

I don't think many would question that Hull has a much stronger case for a good link to Manchester than Scarborough or Middlesbrough.

Got to agree with you there. Hull seems to massively lose out. And it seems an odd choice. Would it be a suitable compromise to have two expresses per hour to Leeds instead of one, but both are semi fasts to Manchester?

The only other contender for the semi fast, would be Scarborough. Personally I think the semi fasts should just stop at Leeds. But that then requires a 7th path across the pennines.

 

[IanXC]

Got to agree with you there. Hull seems to massively lose out. And it seems an odd choice. Would it be a suitable compromise to have two expresses per hour to Leeds instead of one, but both are semi fasts to Manchester?

The only other contender for the semi fast, would be Scarborough. Personally I think the semi fasts should just stop at Leeds. But that then requires a 7th path across the pennines.

Indeed. 2 Expresses as far as Leeds would certainly help - still potentially looking at a change if these semi fasts are to be overtaken.

With provision of an alternative Summer timetable - perhaps additionals by portion working - I really think Scarborough could have justified a downgrade to a service terminating at Leeds, or being joined to the Blackpool to York. It's clearly the eastern destination with the weakest case.

I just hope that Electrification goes ahead, and once the 7th path is available for an electric stopper, the 2 Semi fasts can become a half hourly service for Hull.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Indeed. 2 Expresses as far as Leeds would certainly help - still potentially looking at a change if these semi fasts are to be overtaken.

With provision of an alternative Summer timetable - perhaps additionals by portion working - I really think Scarborough could have justified a downgrade to a service terminating at Leeds, or being joined to the Blackpool to York. It's clearly the eastern destination with the weakest case.

I just hope that Electrification goes ahead, and once the 7th path is available for an electric stopper, the 2 Semi fasts can become a half hourly service for Hull.

I have a fear that this temporary situation of TPE picking up skip stop is going to fast become a permanent way of life.

The people of these local stations will not be happy when someone suggests they lose their semi-fast services to Manchester and Leeds that they never had before.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Got to agree with you there. Hull seems to massively lose out. And it seems an odd choice. Would it be a suitable compromise to have two expresses per hour to Leeds instead of one, but both are semi fasts to Manchester?
The only other contender for the semi fast, would be Scarborough. Personally I think the semi fasts should just stop at Leeds. But that then requires a 7th path across the pennines.

If they only stop at Leeds, they wouldn't be semi-fasts though- they'd be fasts!
I agree that Hull appears to lose out (along with Cottingley; Morley; Batley; Mirfield; Slaithwaite; Marsden; Greenfield and Mossley, of course) unfairly as a result of the semi-fast plans for North TPE.

Of course this thread is looking further into the future and beyond the current franchise. Supposedly if and when wires go up, proper local services may return- in which case my assumption is that the Hull to Manchester service will return to the current arrangements of calling only at Dewsbury and Huddersfield within the core. The Leeds to Manchester semi-fast either does the same or is withdrawn completely. True local services between Huddersfield and both Leeds and Manchester are reintroduced operated by EMUs, possibly joined either side of Huddersfield if this reduces the number of diagrams needed.