Trans Pennine Express - Overpriced waste of space ?

[samuelmorris]

A few observations:
- 3+2 seating does in my opinion dramatically reduce comfort, but it adds capacity - I disagree that on most current 3+2 stock you'd get any more standing passengers in, as standing in aisles of proper stock is too difficult (no helpfully placed handrails etc.), and even where it is doable, you wouldn't fit them two-across by taking one of the seat columns out.

-TPE trains I've found to be fairly comfortable to travel on when seated, but I haven't really travelled during the worst periods. Really though, I think 3-car trains is a bit mediocre these days - if larger trains will fit in every station on the route, then larger trains they could have. There are all sorts of implications for having a higher tph on a given route (nice though it is not to have to wait out in the cold so long) whereas longer units, even just running in pairs at peak times to form 6-car sets throughout, doesn't seem that difficult. (I appreciate there currently isn't the stock do this). Who gets the blame is unimportant, the fact remains, there should just have been more of the 185s than there actually are. Surely though there must be cases where new stock has been ordered mid-franchise, that wasn't already planned at the time the franchise was taken over? Is it really the case that you can't order new stock in the middle of your franchise period?

 

[Tetchytyke]

My point was more that you'd actually have enough room to stand, and stand comfortably, rather than be wedged side-on into a very narrow aisle. FCC's 313s are particularly bad for this and clearly London Overground agreed, because they took the 3rd seat out of their 313s to "improve capacity".

3+2 seating is great at increasing the notional capacity of a train, but the idea of three people sitting side by side on a 142 bench seat is pretty hilarious.

 

[47802]

I agree, TPE are absolutely appalling.

In the 1980's there were 2tph on this route: one loco hauled York-Liverpool with 7-car(?) Mark 2's, and one 4-car Manchester-Hull dmu, i.e. 11 vehicles per hour, the route was not congested and generally ran reliably, most people got a seat without having to fight for it. We now have 4tph 3x3-car & one 2-car = 11 vehicles with fewer seats than previously, almost 1/3 of the space in the 185s is taken up by first class, disabled access toilets etc. and inadequate luggage space. The high frequency means that the route is now congested and few trains run to time, notwithstanding extremely slack point to point times. Almost all trains are overcrowded and the overall experience is unpleasant.

Apparently most passengers want longer trains and more seats but now that 10 185s will become available as a result of 350s taking over Manchester-Scotland diagrams First Group propose running yet another 3-car train per hour (Newcastle-Liverpool via Man Vic) rather than lengthening present diagrams to 6-car! How many trains do we need between York and Newcastle and who in their right mind would chose to travel over this stretch with TPE?!

First Group do not deserve to continue operating this franchise. They are always telling us how wonderful they are and how this is the best ever service on this route. The present timetable and rolling stock is unfit for purpose.

As a regular user of this line I would beg to differ about the capacity in the 1980's Up to 1987 it was generally an hourly Loco Hauled Service with a around 3 trains per day to hull although these were discontinued before 87. So based on the typical formation of 5 Mk 2's for second class that would give an hourly capacity of about 320 Standard, From 87 the hourly Hull was added which was generally a 2 car, initially 150 worked and then 156 although in reality it was frequently cancelled or railbus worked. The loco hauled was reduced to 2 hourly the alternate hour being worked by a 4 car unit to Scarbourgh except it was frequently 2 car, so theroretical standard class capacity was increased to around 450 to 470 standard seats per hour, contrast with today with around 630 per hour which will be increased by another 158 per hour in the may timetable next year.

I do agree that the anglo scottish TPX services should have intercity type rolling stock as ideally should the Liverpool Newcastle service.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

As a regular user of this line I would beg to differ about the capacity in the 1980's Up to 1987 it was generally an hourly Loco Hauled Service with a around 3 trains per day to hull although these were discontinued before 87. So based on the typical formation of 5 Mk 2's for second class that would give an hourly capacity of about 320 Standard, From 87 the hourly Hull was added which was generally a 2 car, initially 150 worked and then 156 although in reality it was frequently cancelled or railbus worked. The loco hauled was reduced to 2 hourly the alternate hour being worked by a 4 car unit to Scarbourgh except it was frequently 2 car, so theroretical standard class capacity was increased to around 450 to 470 standard seats per hour, contrast with today with around 630 per hour which will be increased by another 158 per hour in the may timetable next year.

I do agree that the anglo scottish TPX services should have intercity type rolling stock as ideally should the Liverpool Newcastle service.

Is that a class 158, or 158 extra seats?

 

[northwichcat]

3+2 seating shouldn't feature on any train. I know I'm not alone in saying that I'd rather stand than be wedged in the middle seat of three. And, if you take that third seat out, there might actually be enough room to stand without rubbing your groin in someone's face (unless they ask really nicely)

I wasn't suggesting TPE trains should have an area with 3+2 seating I was saying how Southern deal with local and regional passengers on the same service and the pros and cons of that kind of arrangement. Higher density seating doesn't have to mean 3+2 seating - 156s usually have a higher density seating arrangement than 158s.

 

[47802]

Is that a class 158, or 158 extra seats?

Seats, actually I got it slightly wrong it should be 154 which is the standard class capacity of a 185, which makes the current hourly capacity more like 616 based on 4 x 185, ok sometimes one working maybe a 2 or 4 car 170.

 

[ianhr]

As a regular user of this line I would beg to differ about the capacity in the 1980's Up to 1987 it was generally an hourly Loco Hauled Service with a around 3 trains per day to hull although these were discontinued before 87. So based on the typical formation of 5 Mk 2's for second class that would give an hourly capacity of about 320 Standard, From 87 the hourly Hull was added which was generally a 2 car, initially 150 worked and then 156 although in reality it was frequently cancelled or railbus worked. The loco hauled was reduced to 2 hourly the alternate hour being worked by a 4 car unit to Scarbourgh except it was frequently 2 car, so theroretical standard class capacity was increased to around 450 to 470 standard seats per hour, contrast with today with around 630 per hour which will be increased by another 158 per hour in the may timetable next year.

I do agree that the anglo scottish TPX services should have intercity type rolling stock as ideally should the Liverpool Newcastle service.

I think the hourly loco hauled was introduced in 1980 with Class47 or 45 + 5xMark II 2nd + 1x 1st + full brake, these were hourly Liverpool-York with few per day extended to Newcastle. The Hull workings were hourly Manchester-Hull at first worked by 4-car DMUs, not sure of the Class number but they were made up from cars of the 1960's 6-car Trans-Pennine stock with the catering car and one other removed. By the mid-1980s there were certainly some alterations as there were about 3 per day Lancaster-Hull loco hauled workings via Skipton and some N.Wales-Hull trains. The hourly loco hauled Liverpool-York trains certainly lasted until a year or so after re-routing via Man Picc and the CLC line, and by this time 150s and 156s were being used, either 2-car or 4-car. on one occasion I witnessed a 2-car 142 with the original bus seats working a Hull-Holyhead train.....as an ordeal that must have been something of a record for the through journey! (what a contrast to the loco-hauled MarkII! The loco hauled trains were eventually replaced by 2-car or 3-car 158s.

Does anyone still have a timetable or photographic record or notes of the Standedge route from the 1980s? I am sure the 185 timings are little or no improvement on those of the 1980s not withstanding their supposedly higher power and better acceleration. I suspect that TPE are opting for fuel economy and lots of recovery time.

 

[Darren R]

FTPE may not be the best TOC (although it's not the worst), and I'm not exactly the world's biggest fan of the 185s either - but can we remove our rose-tinted specs for a moment!

Yes the trains were loco-hauled up to the advent of "Sprinterisation" (ugh! BR's word, not mine!) in the summer of 1987, and yes they were longer trains with more seats back then. And yes - there was ONE train per hour between York, Leeds and Manchester (Victoria). Journey times between Leeds and Manchester were typically 66 minutes - and that's on the slightly faster route into Manchester from Stalybridge via Ashton. All trains called at Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Stalybridge, originating at either Newcastle or Scarborough and running through to either Liverpool Lime Street or Chester/North Wales. There was absolutely no pattern to starting point or destination. Passengers from beyond the core York - Leeds - Manchester section had a very haphazzard pattern of services. Hull had eight trains per day to Manchester most of which ran via Sheffield and took about 2 and 3/4 hours. One of them was an early-morning all stations via Leeds, Bradford and the Calder Valley and took three and a quarter hours!

Loco-hauled does not mean 'better', despite what some seem to think. They weren't 'Inter-City-style' trains: air-conditioning consisted of oppening a window in summer and keeping your coat on in winter - even if the heating was working! I remember one journey in around 1987 where I boarded the 47-hauled Mk II carriage at the front, to discover it was virtually empty when the rest of the train was full. It was only on entering Morley Tunnel that I discovered the reason, as I was plunged into complete darkness. There was no lighting working at all - no emergency lights back then! My choice was to either stand in the light or sit in the dark: I chose the latter!

The 185s may not be perfect - but at least the bloody lights work!

 

[DeeGee]

I can't talk about the good old days. I grew up on NSE, and moved away from Connex while they still had slam doors.

I often use TPE South and I'm happy with the service. Admittedly it's off-peak and I'm travelling from one end of the line, but apart from the trolley not coming round weekends or before Doncaster (which can be easily worked around far more cheaply) I don't think I could fault them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Loco-hauled does not mean 'better', despite what some seem to think. They weren't 'Inter-City-style' trains: air-conditioning consisted of oppening a window in summer and keeping your coat on in winter - even if the heating was working

They were Intercity style trains for the time, with most other longer-distance routes also using the MkI or the MkIIa carriages. And defective heating can happen on any train, even DMUs; last time I took the S&C the 158 had defective lighting in one carriage. It happens.

Loco-hauled has the advantage of no underfloor engines, which is good- they're pretty intrusive on the 185s.

That said, I actually like the 185s, they're just not big enough.

 

[rebmcr]

I actually like the 185s, they're just not big enough.

Agreed on all counts. Seating is noticably firmer but I personally don't care. As a DMU, only a 158 beats it IMO — and the power sockets on 185s make it a very close call. Certainly miles ahead of ATW's travelling refridgerators (175s)...

I have not yet sampled 180s or 222s, however.

 

[northwichcat]

Agreed on all counts. Seating is noticably firmer but I personally don't care. As a DMU, only a 158 beats it IMO — and the power sockets on 185s make it a very close call.

When I've changed between an ex-FNW 156 and a 185 I've noticed the latter has firmer seating even if it's newer and has more leg room.

 

[ianhr]

The firmness of the seats does not bother me, it's the INADEQUATE NUMBER OF THEM in the 185s!

I do not think DMUs can ever match the overall quality of passenger environment found in loco-hauled or EMU stock given comparable standards of maintenance. Underfloor engine noise, vibration, fumes, pervasive smell etc. The only exception were the Southern Region Diesel electric sets used on the Hastings, Oxted & Hampshire lines until the 1980s. If we could not afford electrification why were more units not built to this design? (I think the original spec for what became the Voyagers was for a DEMU with an above floor generator unit at one end of the train, but we were conned into accepting the inferior underfloor engined Bombardier product).

The most obvious disadvantage to multiple unit operation is that if there is an insufficient number of compatible units train lengths cannot be adjusted to meet variations in demand. There was never any intention of allowing for 2 or more sets coupled when the 185s were ordered as they have full cab width non-vestibule ends.

The greatest advantage of multiple units is that terminal costs are reduced. There are alternatives, push-pull loco haulage overcomes the turn around problem to a large extent, and this type of working seems to be common in much of the world outside the UK where there are high density traffic flows over relatively short distances. There is the option of varying train lengths and replacing defective vehicles and power units without taking an entire train out of service. Why was this practise abandoned in the UK (apart from London-Norwich where I believe it is still in reliable use) after the 1980s?

 

[ainsworth74]

There was never any intention of allowing for 2 or more sets coupled when the 185s were ordered as they have full cab width non-vestibule ends.

I think you'll find that there was. Until TPE got forced into operating the Manchester - Scotland route 6-car 185s were not an uncommon sight. Since then they've not had the units available to operate many of those formations anywhere other than Manchester - Scotland. Hopefully the arrival of the 350s should change that situation in the nearish future.

There is the option of varying train lengths and replacing defective vehicles and power units without taking an entire train out of service.

Is there? How often do East Coast or Greater Anglia vary the length of their trains? How often do they remove defective vehicles in the middle of the day (overnight of course they do, but then you can do that with MUs)? HSTs don't change formation all that much either. FGW might stick an extra coach in during the high summer to accomodate extra luggage but that's about it. East Coast HSTs have been 2+9 for around ten years now and don't look to be changing any time soon. Same goes for GA their formations don't alter much if at all. I certainly can't remember the last time an East Coast HST for instance was shortened to 2+8 after a coach suffered a technical problem in the middle of the day.

To be honest I don't see how LHCS is any more flexible than MU formations because the reality is they don't change formations at all frequently. For routes like TPE being able to operate long trains through the core and short trains away from it would be a massive asset. For instance you don't need six-car trains from Middlesbrough to York, but you do from York to Manchester. With MUs you can easily join/detach at York with LHCS it is much harder.

 

[tbtc]

I do not think DMUs can ever match the overall quality of passenger environment found in loco-hauled or EMU stock given comparable standards of maintenance. Underfloor engine noise, vibration, fumes, pervasive smell etc

I really do wonder about how sensitive the hearing of some enthusiasts is - are they really as noisy as some people claim?

The only problems I've had with fumes in the past are the ones emitting from the toilets of a Voyager.

As for the general passenger experience standing on a platform when an HST starts spewing out clouds...

The most obvious disadvantage to multiple unit operation is that if there is an insufficient number of compatible units train lengths cannot be adjusted to meet variations in demand

Multiple units allow the length of services to be easily adjusted - virtually every TOC (bar Merseyrail) has services that split/ join to focus capacity on the busiest sections of a route (e.g. Liverpool - Norwich, west of Nottingham) or provide more direct links by combining two services in one (e.g. the Cambrian).

Apart from the ScotRail Sleepers (which have the luxury of having plenty of spare time and not having to worry about other services in the vicinity), how many loco hauled services have regularly done this in recent years?

The "you can easily stick an extra coach in a loco-hauled rake" argument works okay in theory, but seems too much hassle in practice (as explained by Ainsworth)

 

[Tetchytyke]

I certainly can't remember the last time an East Coast HST for instance was shortened to 2+8 after a coach suffered a technical problem in the middle of the day.

Leaving aside the age-old argument about HSTs being LHCS or a DMU, actually it has happened several times with different operators. GrandCentral have ditched defective coaches quite a few times in their history- one was dumped in the siding at Grantham for months- and EC have too. GC are still running around with one of their sets having a 1st coach replacing a standard one, which isn't really something you can do with a DMU set.

The 91s also operate slab-end forwards when there's a defective DVT, which you also can't do with MU stock.

 

[Aldaniti]

FTPE may not be the best TOC (although it's not the worst), and I'm not exactly the world's biggest fan of the 185s either - but can we remove our rose-tinted specs for a moment!

Yes the trains were loco-hauled up to the advent of "Sprinterisation" (ugh! BR's word, not mine!) in the summer of 1987, and yes they were longer trains with more seats back then. And yes - there was ONE train per hour between York, Leeds and Manchester (Victoria). Journey times between Leeds and Manchester were typically 66 minutes - and that's on the slightly faster route into Manchester from Stalybridge via Ashton. All trains called at Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Stalybridge, originating at either Newcastle or Scarborough and running through to either Liverpool Lime Street or Chester/North Wales. There was absolutely no pattern to starting point or destination. Passengers from beyond the core York - Leeds - Manchester section had a very haphazzard pattern of services. Hull had eight trains per day to Manchester most of which ran via Sheffield and took about 2 and 3/4 hours. One of them was an early-morning all stations via Leeds, Bradford and the Calder Valley and took three and a quarter hours!

Loco-hauled does not mean 'better', despite what some seem to think. They weren't 'Inter-City-style' trains: air-conditioning consisted of oppening a window in summer and keeping your coat on in winter - even if the heating was working! I remember one journey in around 1987 where I boarded the 47-hauled Mk II carriage at the front, to discover it was virtually empty when the rest of the train was full. It was only on entering Morley Tunnel that I discovered the reason, as I was plunged into complete darkness. There was no lighting working at all - no emergency lights back then! My choice was to either stand in the light or sit in the dark: I chose the latter!

The 185s may not be perfect - but at least the bloody lights work!

This is how I remember it too. You forgot to add the general grime and dirt and that patting down the seats would result in an uncontrollable coughing fit. So, I keep asking myself why I wish we still had the railway of British Rail than the one we have now. Perhaps it was the seats that lined up with windows, or that the lack of one third two thirds doors didn't create a slightly unpleasant commuter environment on a long distance journey. Perhaps it was the easy access to at least one toilet per coach, and which were rarely locked out of use or perhaps it was the ability to get a reasonably priced ticket on the day without having to book a year in advance. It certainly wasn't the Maxpax coffee or the Lyons individual fruit pies. Swings and roundabouts but on the whole, BR cost an awful lot less. PS, I used to deliberately seek out a coach with no lighting at night - wonderful views of Yorkshire towns and industry all round.

 

[DarloRich]

Yesterday I travelled on the 1709 from Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly. I expected a scrum but found a double 185 and got a table seat! (One unit seems to run empty form York a few minutes ahead of the service train which attaches at Leeds)

Is this normal?

 

[ianhr]

Yesterday I travelled on the 1709 from Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly. I expected a scrum but found a double 185 and got a table seat! (One unit seems to run empty form York a few minutes ahead of the service train which attaches at Leeds)

Is this normal?

WOW! I must check that one out!......a civilised journey from Leeds to Huddersfield at 17.09!

 

[northwichcat]

WOW! I must check that one out!......a civilised journey from Leeds to Huddersfield at 17.09!

One of the evening North TPE services get it's extra carriages nabbed on a Friday to allow a Scottish service to run as 6 car throughout. I'm not sure which one it is though.

 

[ianhr]

There may have been some out of course running this week as I think TPE are having trouble with crews working to rule. Has anyone had a train cancelled?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There may have been some out of course running this week as I think TPE are having trouble with crews working to rule. Has anyone had a train cancelled?

Last Sunday was First TPE Armageddon Day regarding cancellations..

 

[rebmcr]

I really do wonder about how sensitive the hearing of some enthusiasts is - are they really as noisy as some people claim?

I find DMU engines equally noisy as 390 ventilation, or Mk3 underfloor compressors. The only truly quiet stock is commuter EMU's non-motor cars.

 

[47802]

Personally I thought 1st gen sprinters to be very noisy when they first replaced Loco Hauled stock but I suppose now I have got used to it, obviously where you sit in the coach has some bearing on the noise levels, ive always found the 153/155 to be the worst for noise, while the second gen units such as 170/175 to be somewhat better, the rest including the 185 being somewhere in between.

 

[scarby]

That's good but just remember that your 1st Class comfort will have been at the expense of those crammed into the inadequate Standard Class areas of the train where tea and biscuits would be a luxury as the train is usually too crowded for the trolley to circulate. Half the times that I travel the advertised trolley does not exist anyway. Do try Standard Class next time....but you probably will not find it so enjoyable! ( about the only advantage is that you might find a seat not directly above the roaring, or more often idling! engines).

It's not for me as a passenger to feel guilty about the provision in Standard. As a passenger, I am paying for the advertised 1st class service - which on TPE I particularly enjoy - giving me more space, comfort and peace, especially as sometimes I make the journey right through from Scarborough to Manchester Airport and vice-versa.

If people are crammed in Standard then the train operator should be providing larger/more frequent trains.

 

[trainophile]

Last Sunday was First TPE Armageddon Day regarding cancellations..

Any more know about in the pipeline?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Any more know about in the pipeline?

I made that posting as a result of a personal experiance of a family member who was inconvenienced by the matter in hand on that particular Sunday.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

Deleted

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There may have been some out of course running this week as I think TPE are having trouble with crews working to rule.

I think that the highlighted part of the posting above gives an answer to First TPE Sunday crew availability problems

 

[Andrew Nelson]

Leaving aside the age-old argument about HSTs being LHCS or a DMU, actually it has happened several times with different operators. GrandCentral have ditched defective coaches quite a few times in their history- one was dumped in the siding at Grantham for months- and EC have too. GC are still running around with one of their sets having a 1st coach replacing a standard one, which isn't really something you can do with a DMU set.

The 91s also operate slab-end forwards when there's a defective DVT, which you also can't do with MU stock.

There were plenty of occasions in the past where "Hybrid" units were formed, not to mention Transpennine making 3 car sets from split 2 car 158s.
So, yes you can do it with a DMU set.