Why doesn't ICWC operate future Liverpool / Manchester to Scotland route?

[corfield]

Given the future ICWC operator plans to acquire some "baby Pendos" anyway, wouldn't it be more logical once the wires are up Liverpool-St Helens and Manchester to Preston via Bolton, for the ICWC operator to use new short/existing long Pendos on a diamond style structure, e.g. London/Birm-Lpl/Manc-Glasgw/Edin and return? These trains are far more suitable for the NW - Scotland long(ish) distance flow and at 125mph will be quicker than the 110mph Class 350s, plus would avoid the latter holding up the core Pendo services on the WCML anyway. I'm not entirely sure why Trans-Pennine is operating a NW - Scotland service anyway given its name as this will be a pure WCML operation. It just seems more logical to me this way. TPE can then focus on "proper" Trans-Pennine routes, possibly including restoring Leeds-Glasgow via Carlisle...


On another, admittedly fanciful note, with the Manchester-Leeds via Huddersfield line being upgraded and electrified, would it be feasible to use TASS to enable a Pendolino type train to do 125mph over this route? Could the same be done to Manchester-Sheffield via Hope Valley? TPE could then use Pendolinos on services up to York/Newcastle, even, gasp, running at 140 if parts of the upper ECML can indeed support that. Not cheap, and not really realistic, but it's nice to dream, and maybe then Northerners will have something to offset the chip about getting 2nd hand suburban EMUs all the time.


Finally, diverting the topic before it's started; why not send the future surplus Thameslink Class 319s to Merseyrail ? that dual AC/DC capability will be genuinely useful as/if the network expands, it's much cheaper than MR buying new stock (although a 378 type would perhaps be ideal) and means MR can use current/planned/future OHLE lines, and convert it's non 3rd rail accordingly.

 

[northwichcat]

Options for TPE being split up are being examined.

Manchester to Scotland may go to ICWC or LM eventually. I imagine the LM option depends whether the proposed Manchester-Stone-Birmingham service goes ahead.

Newcastle to Liverpool may go to EC or XC which may well see it getting 125mph Intercity rolling stock.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Manchester to Scotland may go to ICWC or LM eventually. I imagine the LM option depends whether the proposed Manchester-Stone-Birmingham service goes ahead.

hock: LM!?

I could see the service going to ICWC though. Perhaps ScotRail or maybe even Northern.

 

[LE Greys]

I've always reckoned that ICWC and LM ought to be merged anyway, producing essentially a new LNWR. I know the original idea was to provide competition on the same route, but although FGW and GA have their critics, they are still providing a decent service, indeed FGW have worked wonders with the Cornish branches and the Oxford/Cotswold service (which scarcely sees a 166 these days). The rest of TPX could then be added to XC, along with the Liverpool-Norwich route, opening up all sorts of new possible services. I, for one, would use a Norwich-Glasgow route on a regular basis, and anywhere that does not have 'SP' speed limits could find itself with 185s, in exchange for a few Voyager diagrams on TPX-N, where they have miles of possible 125 mph running on the ECML. The extra Super Voyagers from ICWC should help, even if they do not get extended.

 

[northwichcat]

One suggestion for LM was to merge the electric routes in to ICWC but I can't remember where the diesel routes were supposed to go if that happened.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not entirely sure why Trans-Pennine is operating a NW - Scotland service anyway given its name as this will be a pure WCML operation. It just seems more logical to me this way. TPE can then focus on "proper" Trans-Pennine routes, possibly including restoring Leeds-Glasgow via Carlisle.

These were not part of the original franchise, but there are other forum members, far better versed than I in such matters, who will give you the reason why this occurred.

 

[northwichcat]

These were not part of the original franchise, but there are other forum members, far better versed than I in such matters, who will give you the reason why this occurred.

I think this relates to VHF. The Voyagers off Manchester-Scotland were needed to enhance Chester-London services to an hourly service.

 

[cle]

It's a tough one, because 350s have been ordered and it makes sense to keep them all within LM. However that's not a deal breaker.

Do Pendos do 125mph much north of Lancaster anyway? I guess it's more the tilt speeds through the Lakes which help, as the non-tilt ones are quite low.

Liverpool to Scotland wouldn't fill a 7 car Babylino. The 350 split at Preston is a decent idea for this reason. If it split again at Carlisle or further north - it could offer Manchester and Liverpool hourly services to Glasgow and Edinburgh. May need to change carriages though!

 

[sprinterguy]

Given the future ICWC operator plans to acquire some "baby Pendos" anyway, wouldn't it be more logical once the wires are up Liverpool-St Helens and Manchester to Preston via Bolton, for the ICWC operator to use new short/existing long Pendos on a diamond style structure, e.g. London/Birm-Lpl/Manc-Glasgw/Edin and return? These trains are far more suitable for the NW - Scotland long(ish) distance flow and at 125mph will be quicker than the 110mph Class 350s, plus would avoid the latter holding up the core Pendo services on the WCML anyway.

The Transpennine Express services are only around five minutes slower (The time difference varies slightly from hour to hour) than Virgin's Voyager and Pendolino services between Preston and Carlisle, and around ten minutes slower between Preston and Glasgow.

I do however entirely agree with you that the Manchester to Scotland services would sit better with the West Coast franchise and would suit Pendolinos better than they do 185s or even the future 350s.

I'm not entirely sure why Trans-Pennine is operating a NW - Scotland service anyway given its name as this will be a pure WCML operation. It just seems more logical to me this way. TPE can then focus on "proper" Trans-Pennine routes, possibly including restoring Leeds-Glasgow via Carlisle...

All the 185s that will be released from the Manchester to Scotland services by 350s have already been accounted for within the franchise as they are urgently needed to provide additional capacity on the core Transpennine routes. Displacing the 350s in turn would not provide any additional rolling stock to operate a Leeds to Glasgow via Carlisle service as the S&C is not electrified.

On another, admittedly fanciful note, with the Manchester-Leeds via Huddersfield line being upgraded and electrified, would it be feasible to use TASS to enable a Pendolino type train to do 125mph over this route? Could the same be done to Manchester-Sheffield via Hope Valley? TPE could then use Pendolinos on services up to York/Newcastle, even, gasp, running at 140 if parts of the upper ECML can indeed support that. Not cheap, and not really realistic, but it's nice to dream, and maybe then Northerners will have something to offset the chip about getting 2nd hand suburban EMUs all the time.

Running at 125mph over the Transpennine routes would reduce the number of paths available for slower freight services and local trains. In the case of the North Transpennine route this would include the local services from Huddersfield into Leeds and Manchester.

There are many more worthwhile infrastructure investment opportunities available for implementation on the Hope Valley line that would do much to enhance capacity on the route (Double tracking the Dore chord, loops at Chinley, shorter signalling sections) before there is any consideration of raising linespeeds. What the Hope Valley line needs is a more frequent local service calling at the intermediate stations, not faster journey times from end to end eating into the paths available for the slower trains.

140mph running on the ECML is only a possibility after ERTMS has been implemented.

Finally, diverting the topic before it's started; why not send the future surplus Thameslink Class 319s to Merseyrail ? that dual AC/DC capability will be genuinely useful as/if the network expands, it's much cheaper than MR buying new stock (although a 378 type would perhaps be ideal) and means MR can use current/planned/future OHLE lines, and convert it's non 3rd rail accordingly.

Merseyrail have already begun to explore avenues for procuring new trains though, having recently taken on a rolling stock procurement manager.

If Merseyrail were to take on the 319s, Northern Rail would have to incur additional costs procuring new EMUs for the presently announced electrification schemes in the North West, increasing the total cost of these projects.

Additionally, I believe that a number of the platforms on the Merseyrail network can only accomodate six carriage trains. It would not be possible to double up the 319s into eight carriage formations within the existing platform lengths: Four carriage trains (single units) would be the maximum possible.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given the future ICWC operator plans to acquire some "baby Pendos" anyway, wouldn't it be more logical once the wires are up Liverpool-St Helens and Manchester to Preston via Bolton, for the ICWC operator to use new short/existing long Pendos on a diamond style structure, e.g. London/Birm-Lpl/Manc-Glasgw/Edin and return? These trains are far more suitable for the NW - Scotland long(ish) distance flow and at 125mph will be quicker than the 110mph Class 350s, plus would avoid the latter holding up the core Pendo services on the WCML anyway. I'm not entirely sure why Trans-Pennine is operating a NW - Scotland service anyway given its name as this will be a pure WCML operation. It just seems more logical to me this way. TPE can then focus on "proper" Trans-Pennine routes, possibly including restoring Leeds-Glasgow via Carlisle...


On another, admittedly fanciful note, with the Manchester-Leeds via Huddersfield line being upgraded and electrified, would it be feasible to use TASS to enable a Pendolino type train to do 125mph over this route? Could the same be done to Manchester-Sheffield via Hope Valley? TPE could then use Pendolinos on services up to York/Newcastle, even, gasp, running at 140 if parts of the upper ECML can indeed support that. Not cheap, and not really realistic, but it's nice to dream, and maybe then Northerners will have something to offset the chip about getting 2nd hand suburban EMUs all the time.


Finally, diverting the topic before it's started; why not send the future surplus Thameslink Class 319s to Merseyrail ? that dual AC/DC capability will be genuinely useful as/if the network expands, it's much cheaper than MR buying new stock (although a 378 type would perhaps be ideal) and means MR can use current/planned/future OHLE lines, and convert it's non 3rd rail accordingly.

The SRA/DfT decided that Voyagers working Manchester-Scotland were better used on Euston-North Wales and XC routes.
They also part-duplicated services between Manchester and Preston, so TPE got the job.
TPE seems very popular with the DfT as it has turned round its services very well (too well some would say!).
The whole NT/TPE franchise map is in the melting pot.
Local pride would like to integrate them, but DfT may still think that a separate "express" brand is still needed.
Baby Pendos are 6-car (1 first, 5 standard I suppose). Big trains compared to now.
It all comes down to the business case. Can the Scottish routes support them?

Similarly on the Liverpool-Newcastle route.
There is currently no 100mph running west of Church Fenton, and generally the route is 75mph with a bit of 85 over the top.
There is a plan to get 90mph Ordsall Lane-Edge Hill (75 over Chat Moss).
Very curvy Manchester-Leeds, but practically straight elsewhere.
Like you I have always wondered why tilt and TASS are mandatory for the WCML but ignored everywhere else.
You might get a more consistent 90-100mph out of the route with TASS, and 125mph north of York/Preston.
Anyway the TP demand is for high frequency (4-5tph) rather than speed.
So we seem to be stuck in a non-tilt 110mph-max mood at the moment.

 

[John55]

Like you I have always wondered why tilt and TASS are mandatory for the WCML but ignored everywhere else.

The WCML is curvy in places so tilt allows trains to go faster without upsetting the sitting passenger's equilibrium.

One of the functions of the TASS system is to ensure the Pendolinos only tilt when it is safe for them to do so. On the WCML there are several locations were a train which is tilting in accordance with the curvature and speed profile could hit a solid object, in particular one of the tunnels.

TASS prevents this by ensuring the train speed and tilt is controlled at these locations.

The loading gauge on the WCML is a little tighter than some other lines but had Robert Stephenson realised the need to allow for 125mph running and tilt he would probably have done things differently! If there was sufficient room for tilt to never infringe the loading gauge life would be simpler and that function of TASS could be eliminated.

 

[LE Greys]

The WCML is curvy in places so tilt allows trains to go faster without upsetting the sitting passenger's equilibrium.

One of the functions of the TASS system is to ensure the Pendolinos only tilt when it is safe for them to do so. On the WCML there are several locations were a train which is tilting in accordance with the curvature and speed profile could hit a solid object, in particular one of the tunnels.

TASS prevents this by ensuring the train speed and tilt is controlled at these locations.

The loading gauge on the WCML is a little tighter than some other lines but had Robert Stephenson realised the need to allow for 125mph running and tilt he would probably have done things differently! If there was sufficient room for tilt to never infringe the loading gauge life would be simpler and that function of TASS could be eliminated.

While, of course, APT could manage perfectly fine without it by simply being a little bit narrower in places. I'm not sure whether it was self-levelling when stopped on curves.

Incidentally, I thought another problem with the XC timetable is that they had to allow for a 220 running VICE 221, so everything was set up for non-tilt running. ICWC no longer needs to worry about that.

 

[IanXC]

One suggestion for LM was to merge the electric routes in to ICWC but I can't remember where the diesel routes were supposed to go if that happened.

As I understand it, at the remapping that created LM the DfT allowed Chiltern to put a proposal in to take over the Snow Hill lines (which the Department decided not to take up). Presumably Marston Vale would have gone to EMT and Shrewsbury to ATW. That leaves a couple of diesel routes which would have presumably ended up with CrossCountry.

 

[northwichcat]

If Merseyrail were to take on the 319s, Northern Rail would have to incur additional costs procuring new EMUs for the presently announced electrification schemes in the North West, increasing the total cost of these projects.

While I'm not supportive of the idea of Merseyrail getting the 319s I think the second part of this statement isn't a valid reason for Northern not getting new EMUs.

The 319s are in need of an expensive refurbishment and life extension program and have one of the highest track access costs of any multiple unit. A 4 car 319 costs 31.28p per mile, while a 4 car 377 costs 24.56p per mile.

There have also been suggestions that with additional electrification announced that Thames Valley may get new EMUs instead of the originally proposed 319s. So if that's been considered then surely new EMUs for Northern has an even greater viability - given Northern are short of around 3 x EMUs at present and the spare 317s wouldn't even cover half of the Chat Moss services as a stop gap solution.

 

[Pumbaa]

Maybe worth mentioning at this point the Northern Triangle timetable of improvements is pretty much binned.

As the Thameslink signing keeps slipping, it's not anticipated to get 319s up North till end of 2016. Until then, there'll be 8 317s which have been earmarked to start things off.

GW Thames valley are still on course to get their own EMUs if they want them.

319s aren't going to Merseyrail. Plans are well underway for new stock procurement.

 

[Class377/5]

Maybe worth mentioning at this point the Northern Triangle timetable of improvements is pretty much binned.

As the Thameslink signing keeps slipping, it's not anticipated to get 319s up North till end of 2016. Until then, there'll be 8 317s which have been earmarked to start things off.

GW Thames valley are still on course to get their own EMUs if they want them.

319s aren't going to Merseyrail. Plans are well underway for new stock procurement.

As it stands it's looking like the 319's will be withdrawn first meaning the first ones will be available in summer 2015. However refurbishment should be done prior to moving onto new pastures.

Still think it makes more sense for GW to get the 319's and let a common fleet do the Northern and TPE electric services.

 

[Class172]

As I understand it, at the remapping that created LM the DfT allowed Chiltern to put a proposal in to take over the Snow Hill lines (which the Department decided not to take up). Presumably Marston Vale would have gone to EMT and Shrewsbury to ATW. That leaves a couple of diesel routes which would have presumably ended up with CrossCountry.

I would have thought that also, with perhaps the Birmingham-Hereford services tagged onto the Birmingham-Leicester/Stansted services.

 

[northwichcat]

Until then, there'll be 8 317s which have been earmarked to start things off.

5 units are needed for the Liverpool-Airport services and the Liverpool-Bank Quay services are set to be diverted/extended to Victoria. So that'll probably mean the stoppers will remain as DMU if only the 317s are available. As they were refurbished for Airport services I would expect it to be that way around and not the 156s on Airport services and 317s on some of the stoppers.

While the Airport service may move to the CLC line it won't at the next recast given the TPE services on Chat Moss will run Liverpool-Manchester non-stop and the Liverpool-Scarborough service is set to remain in the 2014 recast.

 

[Pumbaa]

As it stands it's looking like the 319's will be withdrawn first meaning the first ones will be available in summer 2015. However refurbishment should be done prior to moving onto new pastures.

Read my post again. You're out by a year.

 

[northwichcat]

Read my post again. You're out by a year.

Are you 100% sure on 2016? I heard that Siemens had finance issues relating to the Thameslink order and hoped to resolve them by the end of this year.

 

[Pumbaa]

Are you 100% sure on 2016? I heard that Siemens had finance issues relating to the Thameslink order and hoped to resolve them by the end of this year.

Hot off the press and you heard it here first...

It had already slipped to early next year, but now it's looking unlikely before Spring. Siemens did release a presser the other day, still saying commercial close by Christmas, financial in the New Year but that's not what they're saying in the industry.

The Guardian also had this yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/30/thameslink-trains-west-coast-fiasco?INTCMP=SRCH

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hot off the press and you heard it here first...
It had already slipped to early next year, but now it's looking unlikely before Spring. Siemens did release a presser the other day, still saying commercial close by Christmas, financial in the New Year but that's not what they're saying in the industry.
The Guardian also had this yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/30/thameslink-trains-west-coast-fiasco?INTCMP=SRCH

Why does anyone think that if Siemens are having problems financing the Thameslink deal, that Bombardier would find it any easier?
Given the state of play at DfT I think we are in danger of counting too many chickens on who gets new stock and what/when cascades result.
Maybe the AC London TOCs can be persuaded to release a few more EMUs by Dec 2014 for NW services.

 

[northwichcat]

Why does anyone think that if Siemens are having problems financing the Thameslink deal, that Bombardier would find it any easier?

Didn't Siemens' proposal include a higher risk with finance than Bombardier's?

Maybe the AC London TOCs can be persuaded to release a few more EMUs by Dec 2014 for NW services.

SWT does seem to be getting a lot of benefit from the other EMU cascades in the South - getting 460s and to get 456s once Southern get the additional 377s.

Maybe they'll be forced to give up some 450s that can easily be converted to 350s instead of getting all the extra capacity? They could also then return to SWT in the future with the AC wiring proposed in the Southampton area.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't Siemens' proposal include a higher risk with finance than Bombardier's?

No, the other way round.
Siemens has the better credit rating, and the lower cost of finance was apparently a key element in the win.

 

[Pumbaa]

Why does anyone think that if Siemens are having problems financing the Thameslink deal, that Bombardier would find it any easier?
Given the state of play at DfT I think we are in danger of counting too many chickens on who gets new stock and what/when cascades result.
Maybe the AC London TOCs can be persuaded to release a few more EMUs by Dec 2014 for NW services.

I don't think anyone except DfT actually thinks that. The risk is that the more it slips, the more it costs. I don't know where that point is exactly (does anyone as a matter of fact, seeing DfT's failings?) and at some point it will become beneficial to reconsider the outcome of the award.

From where I'm standing, the effect the ICWC debacle has had is that everything has been frozen - absolutely everything has been put on hold. There seem to be daily memos detailing new hold-ups, another project put on the back burner, and decisions that were 1 meeting away from being signed off being shelved. Anything that relied on a tight timescale is now fubared.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't think anyone except DfT actually thinks that. The risk is that the more it slips, the more it costs. I don't know where that point is exactly (does anyone as a matter of fact, seeing DfT's failings?) and at some point it will become beneficial to reconsider the outcome of the award.

The impression I get is that the delay is down to Siemens getting bank finance at its anticipated rate, rather than anything between DfT and Siemens.
I quite agree that delay is costly and might impact the deal.
But none of this suggests Bombardier would do any better.

 

[AndrewP]

My instinct here is that two things may currently be happening:

1. Siemems have found financing more difficult or more expensive due to the Eurozone crisis which may be affecting their bid / profit

2. Any recent bid where the DfT has been involved is being reviewed in light of the civil service incompetence demonstrated with the ICWC bid (should it have happened after NXEC?) and is on hold for this reason.

It may be a mix of the two.

 

[DXMachina]

Regarding the 'Baby Pendolino' units mentioned in connection with future WCML services:

Has there been any confirmation that Alsthom were behind the new units that First intended to order? I know it seems the most likely bet given the need for tilt and the sudden interest in testing Cl.390 in new places, viz ECML, but I dont recall seeing it made certain that they were even invited to tender let alone accepted

 

[Pumbaa]

First had products from Alstom (mini 6 car Pendo) and CAF (non tilting 6 car) lined up. Never got to procurement. Disadvantage with CAF product would be limit of 110mph on WC.

 

[northwichcat]

the sudden interest in testing Cl.390 in new places, viz ECML,

That was believed to be in response to the IEP review to see how well a Pendolino could perform in lieu of electric IEP.