Transpennine Express decide not to use MK3's on limited services

[Bletchleyite]

You can put full length trains through there - 2+7 HSTs for example in the early XC era. They just can't stop there.

 

[mike57]

Out of interest, where do you think the main passenger demand to / from Scarborough comes from / goes to ? If there are enough passengers to fill 6 carriages from the far side of the Penines, that is one thing. If more demand comes from Leeds / York, would it be feasible to portion-work Scarborough with Middlesbrough on TPE (assuming both remain unelectrified for the foreseeable), and supplement capacity to Scarborough by extending the Blackpool-York train, which would also have the benefit of allowing a more frequent overall service to York and Leeds, and creating a direct link to Bradford, Halifax and East Lancashire?

Scarborough (and include Seamer and Malton in this) is probably quite an oddball. There is a significant commuter flows to York and Leeds, but then in the summer and school holidays (even half terms) there is a significant flow from the NW for holidays/short breaks/days out. Add to this the fact that Manchester is the easiest airport to get to from Scarborough which generates a significant number of journeys. (Humberside airport is nearly impossible by public transport from this area, Teeside is the same, and Leeds/Bradford is a significant bus journey from Leeds, and very susceptible to weather problems). On top of this there are business and leisure journeys to the NW. (I travel to Manchester on average once per week, and I see the same faces over time). There is due to be a Northern shuttle from York introduced, but I think the date has been put back again. The problem with this is that people traveling beyond York will still want to catch the through train, although it will help in the rush hour when there is a significant flow starting finishing journeys in York. Except for special events there wouldn't be a 3 carriage fill from stations west of Leeds, otherwise you could argue for trains missing Leeds completely going via Wakefield and direct to York.

I don't think splitting the Scarborough train in York would work as Scarborough is only accessible from platforms 3 & 5, (OK so 4 & 2 also have access but thats no good for splitting a train)

And of course back in the day the route was Blackpool North - Scarborough for a few years

As an aside if the Northern shuttle is a 158 there are differential speed limits over a significant portion of the route, up to 90mph in places so will Northern offer a faster journey time.

As for electrification, its not going to solve the underlying problems. What are needed are longer trains, much longer, rather than trying to run 6 trains per hour. To be honest unless you are finishing your journey in Manchester Victoria or Liverpool Lime Street your journey from Scarborough post May 2018 will take longer as the majority of (useful) connections leave from Piccadilly, and Liverpool SP and Warrington are no longer served.

Current timetable has a significant recovery time at Leeds and York, and trains still manage to get late on a regular basis mainly due to following stopper somewhere on the route. A better use of money would be to provide 2 through tracks at stations where space allows, Certainly Crossgates, Slaithwaite and Mirfield seem to be obvious candidates, coupled with restoring the west bound through line at Dewsbury. This would mean the current lunacy of stopping Hull Manchester trains at 'local' stations and withdrawing the local could be reversed. I actually think overall the service will be worse post May 2018

 

[BMIFlyer]

My only real problem with 185s is that they are overweight fuel guzzling monsters that can't use SP differentials.

ECO mode solves the fuel issue. More economical than you think. The SP differential is more than made up for by very fast acceleration.

 

[Phlip]

Add to this the fact that Manchester is the easiest airport to get to from Scarborough which generates a significant number of journeys. (Humberside airport is nearly impossible by public transport from this area, Teeside is the same, and Leeds/Bradford is a significant bus journey from Leeds, and very susceptible to weather problems).

To get to Humberside Airport from Scarborough it’s a direct train to Hull then the hourly Humber Flyer bus from Hull Station direct to the airport. Easy.

 

[ash39]

I still think a vast number of people will go to Manchester Airport for the wider range of flights available.

Also, whilst the journey you've suggested is simple enough, try doing it with three kids and luggage. I'm not averse to changing trains or modes of transport, but if I'm flying with the family I value the fact I can get a taxi to the train station followed by a train direct to the terminal.

 

[mike57]

To get to Humberside Airport from Scarborough it’s a direct train to Hull then the hourly Humber Flyer bus from Hull Station direct to the airport. Easy.

Not really, Journey time to Hull is 90mins, and trains only run every 90/120mins, with the last train leaving Hull at around 7.30pm No good if your flight is delayed, or connections dont work out. Too uncertain.

 

[keith1879]

As for electrification, its not going to solve the underlying problems. What are needed are longer trains, much longer, rather than trying to run 6 trains per hour. To be honest unless you are finishing your journey in Manchester Victoria or Liverpool Lime Street your journey from Scarborough post May 2018 will take longer as the majority of (useful) connections leave from Piccadilly, and Liverpool SP and Warrington are no longer served.

Current timetable has a significant recovery time at Leeds and York, and trains still manage to get late on a regular basis mainly due to following stopper somewhere on the route. A better use of money would be to provide 2 through tracks at stations where space allows, Certainly Crossgates, Slaithwaite and Mirfield seem to be obvious candidates, coupled with restoring the west bound through line at Dewsbury. This would mean the current lunacy of stopping Hull Manchester trains at 'local' stations and withdrawing the local could be reversed. I actually think overall the service will be worse post May 2018

I don't intend to get into a discussion because I don't know what the ideal answer is.
1. There already are 6 trains per hour. The only planned change is that they will all be operated by Trans-Pennine (ie instead of 5 TP and 1 Northern)
2. Four of these will be 5 coaches when the new stock arrives.
3. rather than just saying "we need longer trains" I think it's reasonable to ask what your specific plan would be. How long? What formation? How frequent?

 

[keith1879]

Apologies Mike - you already answered my questions! 4 trains per hour of 6 coaches each!! (On the previous page).

 

[HSTEd]

ECO mode solves the fuel issue. More economical than you think. The SP differential is more than made up for by very fast acceleration.

The SP differential might be partially made up by the very fast acceleration, but it is entirely possible to engineer very fast accelerating units that can use SP differentials - which rather erases that advantage.
(After all the Class 172 might have many fewer horses under the solebar, it also has much less lard to move).

 

[Phlip]

I still think a vast number of people will go to Manchester Airport for the wider range of flights available.

Also, whilst the journey you've suggested is simple enough, try doing it with three kids and luggage. I'm not averse to changing trains or modes of transport, but if I'm flying with the family I value the fact I can get a taxi to the train station followed by a train direct to the terminal.

I quite agree. I wasn’t suggesting Humberside was in anyway a better option than Manchester. I don’t think it is for many reasons. But mike57 said it was “nearly impossible” to get there from Scarborough by public transport when infact it’s really very possible.

 

[Phlip]

Not really, Journey time to Hull is 90mins, and trains only run every 90/120mins, with the last train leaving Hull at around 7.30pm No good if your flight is delayed, or connections dont work out. Too uncertain.

So by “nearly impossible” you mean “quite inconvenient”? Yep, I agree.

 

[Chester1]

My only real problem with 185s is that they are overweight fuel guzzling monsters that can't use SP differentials.
Turbostars, especially late model ones, are better trains overall I think.

The real problem with TPE that is not going away any time soon is tha the platforms at Oxford Road mean any train routed via the through platforms at Picadilly has to be relatively short.
Can't put 8x23m formations on it, or I would recommend some form of pseudo Turbostar for the job. One coach of first class and 7 standard.

And you certainly can't put 225s through there, not without an Oxford Road rebuild - unless you want to just take two of the platforms out of use.

The paused plan of two extra through platforms at Piccadilly and rebuilding Oxford Road would solve the problem. Two extra through platforms at Piccadilly would make the Oxford Road terminating platform redundant and allow platforms 1 to 4 to be extended westwards. The Transport Works Act for Piccadilly has been waiting for ministerial approval for two years.

The provisional times for the May timetable change seem to show an overall improvement and the Mark III sets and (hopefully)the return of the 4 x 185s currently used by Northern should help to reduce overcrowding. Its hard to predict the outcome from the planned changes over the next two years. The DfT seems to be taking things one step at a time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think if we were going to have only one of the Ordsall Chord and Picc P15/16 the latter would have been better. Though I guess the decision was made when both were expected to proceed.

 

[Chester1]

I still think if we were going to have only one of the Ordsall Chord and Picc P15/16 the latter would have been better. Though I guess the decision was made when both were expected to proceed.

Ordsall cost slightly over half the estimated cost of P15/16 which must have been a factor. Could Piccadilly have supported more than 12 through services without removing 2tph reversing across the station throat and 1tph crossing it? The latter service (Liverpool-Manchester-Scarborough) could have been diverted via Victoria without Ordsall but it would still left Piccadilly pathing a mess. We may yet have both projects!

 

[IanXC]

Not really, Journey time to Hull is 90mins, and trains only run every 90/120mins, with the last train leaving Hull at around 7.30pm No good if your flight is delayed, or connections dont work out. Too uncertain.

This will of course be a departure from Scarborough to Hull every hour from May.

 

[mike57]

Last connection from Humberside airport is 18.10 arr Scarborough 20.43 previous journey is 15.50 arr Hull 16.40 dep 17.38 arr Scarborough 19.15. That's 3hr 25m. Hourly bus does not work with non clockface Hull Scarborough service, so not impossible but if you arrive after 18:00 you are stuck. Compare that with an hourly service from Man airport 2h45m journey and last train at 20:30

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ordsall cost slightly over half the estimated cost of P15/16 which must have been a factor. Could Piccadilly have supported more than 12 through services without removing 2tph reversing across the station throat and 1tph crossing it?

That assumes you think (a) more TPE services are sensible, rather than maxing out the length, and (b) that the Picc reversing Airport services should stay (which I don't, as in the short term at least they are a waste of a DMU).

 

[AndrewE]

That assumes you think (a) more TPE services are sensible, rather than maxing out the length, and (b) that the Picc reversing Airport services should stay (which I don't, as in the short term at least they are a waste of a DMU).

I think the airport service is pretty poor, so removing the through trains from across the Pennines would be a retrograde step and discourage users. If it was a non-stop shuttle every 10 minutes I might agree with you there too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the airport service is pretty poor, so removing the through trains from across the Pennines would be a retrograde step and discourage users. If it was a non-stop shuttle every 10 minutes I might agree with you there too.

My proposal for the Airport would be to remove the services going from the main platforms and replace with a 4 or 6tph clockface all stations EMU service (one per hour going through to Crewe) from a dedicated platform (11, perhaps, for ease of interchange with 13/14 too?) with a strong branding and trains with quality interiors and large luggage provision - a bit like a Manchester HEx but without the rip-off fares.

You'd probably have to keep the through services on 13/14 to stop them getting in the way terminating at Picc, though. That means it maybe wouldn't all be able to be all stations on all services. Though you could perhaps send one of them to Stockport bays, there's less of a case for removing those services as they aren't in the way of anything.

Yes, a few people would have to change that don't have to at present, but it would be a change on the level and a relatively short walk, and it would free up at least one Class 185.

 

[Spartacus]

I think with that you'd kill much of the market for rail travel to the airport, the average person who's travelling once or twice a year really wouldn't want to change at all if possible, they've likely already got enough problems on their mine when going away. I know people going from Dewsbury don't want to change at Huddersfield to get an airport service, and that's normally same platform, they'd rather get a taxi to Huddersfield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think with that you'd kill much of the market for rail travel to the airport, the average person who's travelling once or twice a year really wouldn't want to change at all if possible, they've likely already got enough problems on their mine when going away. I know people going from Dewsbury don't want to change at Huddersfield to get an airport service, and that's normally same platform, they'd rather get a taxi to Huddersfield.

You'd probably have to do some analysis as to where most of the airport traffic and potential airport traffic came from. The improved clockface service from Manchester itself might attract other passengers instead.

 

[Spartacus]

You'd probably have to do some analysis as to where most of the airport traffic and potential airport traffic came from. The improved clockface service from Manchester itself might attract other passengers instead.

Maybe, but probably only those who would find Piccadilly the most convenient station to home or were regular rail users already. I think most other will look at rail enquiries, find they can't go direct and scrap the idea there and then, 10 minute frequency or not.

You have to remember that driving to Manchester Airport for many people is very easy, and they'll fall back on that if there's any perceptible barriers to using anything else.

Anyway, I think we're getting very off topic now, how about some Mk3 gen, anyone know when they might next do a run, even as ECS?

 

[rebmcr]

You'd probably have to do some analysis as to where most of the airport traffic and potential airport traffic came from.

Hasn't said analysis already been done, which is the reason for the present batch of direct services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hasn't said analysis already been done, which is the reason for the present batch of direct services?

It may have been, it may not have been, it may simply have been done when the station opened and not revisited later - I don't know.

 

[tbtc]

Removing first class on 185s may not free up a huge number of seats, but when capacity is as stretched as it is then, as they say, every little helps. The question is whether or not the extra revenue generated through first class tickets is more important than providing more standard capacity. There would be a fair bit more standing room created too by the removal of first class.

The other problem with FC on the 185s is that it's not at one end - like FC is on most trains - it's in the middle of one of the carriages (to ensure access to the disabled toilet?) - so Standard Class passengers don't circulate as freely on a 185 as they do on some DMUs.

But it'd be too much hassle to start changing the location of FC on the units, so I don't think it'd be worth "solving" this issue.

I can't understand why they keep proposing a more intense service when the real need is for more capacity and resilience, which would be provided by doubling train lengths on a 4 trains an hour timetable, splitting /joining to serve a variety of eastern destinations if necessary. It seems to work OK at Preston, as I saw yesterday.

Partly because of the "everywhere needs to have a direct link to everywhere" school of logic that has messed up timetables in northern England.

For example, Newcastle is getting a 15/45 minute frequency to Manchester (instead of a simpler half hourly service) because it's apparently important to have both a Liverpool and a Manchester Airport service every hour, even though the actual number of people doing the journey from end to end will be minimal.

It'd be much simpler to run fewer longer services on a lot of lines - you could then improve one line without being hamstrung by reliance upon paths on other routes - but we seem to value "direct" trains over simple timetables.

My proposal for the Airport would be to remove the services going from the main platforms and replace with a 4 or 6tph clockface all stations EMU service (one per hour going through to Crewe) from a dedicated platform (11, perhaps, for ease of interchange with 13/14 too?) with a strong branding and trains with quality interiors and large luggage provision - a bit like a Manchester HEx but without the rip-off fares.

You'd probably have to keep the through services on 13/14 to stop them getting in the way terminating at Picc, though. That means it maybe wouldn't all be able to be all stations on all services. Though you could perhaps send one of them to Stockport bays, there's less of a case for removing those services as they aren't in the way of anything.

Yes, a few people would have to change that don't have to at present, but it would be a change on the level and a relatively short walk, and it would free up at least one Class 185.

Agreed.

At the moment the average service departs Manchester Airport with around thirty two passengers - most of whom will presumably be heading for central Manchester (or stations between the Airport and Piccadilly), so the numbers going beyond Manchester City Centre will be lower.

You'd be much better with something like three non-stop services per hour plus three stoppers per hour, all suited to airport traffic, rather than the nine services per hour that we have at the moment. But I accept that I'm in the minority here - it's more important to have a direct train every hour for the sake of those "once-a-year" journeys that people do than to have a robust timetable for everyday passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Partly because of the "everywhere needs to have a direct link to everywhere" school of logic that has messed up timetables in northern England.

Quite.

It'd be much simpler to run fewer longer services on a lot of lines - you could then improve one line without being hamstrung by reliance upon paths on other routes - but we seem to value "direct" trains over simple timetables.

Again agreed. I love the WCML-Takt - from MKC going north you have to know just three numbers to know the timetable all day, and changes are easy. Though I think to some extent you could have both on the Swiss model - an hourly train A-B-C and one A-B-D with a connection B-C/B-D in the opposite half hour.

You'd be much better with something like three non-stop services per hour plus three stoppers per hour, all suited to airport traffic, rather than the nine services per hour that we have at the moment. But I accept that I'm in the minority here - it's more important to have a direct train every hour for the sake of those "once-a-year" journeys that people do than to have a robust timetable for everyday passengers.

That sounds good - the making of an S-Bahn-Manchester indeed[1], and remedying the unjustifiably poor service at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley.

[1] I've toyed with the idea that Manchester S-Bahn services should in some way share Metrolink branding, perhaps something like "Metrolink Express", "MetroExpress" or "ExpressLink" showing how trains are a bit quicker, but painted yellow etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

Partly because of the "everywhere needs to have a direct link to everywhere" school of logic that has messed up timetables in northern England.

For example, Newcastle is getting a 15/45 minute frequency to Manchester (instead of a simpler half hourly service) because it's apparently important to have both a Liverpool and a Manchester Airport service every hour, even though the actual number of people doing the journey from end to end will be minimal.

It'd be much simpler to run fewer longer services on a lot of lines - you could then improve one line without being hamstrung by reliance upon paths on other routes - but we seem to value "direct" trains over simple timetables.

I'm not so sure that the "everywhere needs to have a direct link to everywhere" school of logic was actually deliberately applied to services across the North, but more the "got to make the limited stock and capacity do as much as possible" school of finance. After all for a good amount of time the North has had to make do with 2 & 3 car units running mixtures of commuter, suburban & intercity services, often doing all three at once. And they still do.....

Perhaps the fact that Manchester Airport is a handy terminus not too far away from a up until recently overstretched terminal with a chronic congestion problem drove the thinking to the south west of the city. Ideally, and getting the Crayolas out again the route would extend under MIA and onto Liverpool, perhaps with a link to the WCML meaning that through services from Liverpool and other destinations could make the calls there, with all the others soaking up what capacity there is to terminate in central Manchester? Plus there are other pressures, MIA is increasingly popular not just with the annual bucket and spaders, but with international and business travellers who are demanding more and more destinations. And with just one woefully inadequate motorway link across the Pennines, more and more people are seeking alternatives to getting to the airport. If you've ever had to wait an hour and a half for a pre-booked taxi back across the hills that's got stuck in the jams and roadworks after you've fallen off the red-eye, you'll understand why some people are sympathetic towards more connectivity from there east (and west, and north, and south!).

Sadly, and as we all know here, there is neither the finances nor the political will to create the ideal solutions, so the sticky plaster ones it will have to be well into the future.

 

[Muzer]

Since this thread is mostly random discussions on TransPennine, I do apologise but I would rather not read the whole thing. This is completely news to me, as I've not been keeping track of things as much as I should have. Can I just please ask:

* Is the TransPennine Pretendolino in passenger service? Will it be or has it been and gone?
* How long will it be in service for?

 

[158820]

It has only done 1 test run in passenger service, at the turn of the year but there should be more training underway soon. Has not started yet properly. The stock was moved up from Laira last week again.

Somebody more informed than a passing observer like myself will tell us more hopefully.

 

[Spartacus]

I've just noticed these little beasties in for TPE at the end of the month, I wonder if they could have something to do with it, with stops possibly to check platforms?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/N11554/2018/01/30/advanced