TPE 350s

[Nym]

I might have missed something (and probably have....)but if the new units will be used via Wigan for services to and from Scotland/Manchester will TPE not be using 185's to run alternative services through Bolton so that the already chronically overcrowded services do not get any worse? Northern Rail services alone can't cope.

I'm not sure how this works, but I already no that I struggle to board the train to and from Manchester as it is.

I'm personally hoping for a return to the 07 timetable with Barrow/Windermere alternating for the xx00MIA, xx16MAN, xx19MCO, xx33BON service path, with Blackpool North continuing as is. Taking fast Preston passengers away should be helpful, but only if the same level of stock keeps rolling through all the time.

There was a small plan I came up with that saved the path through C Manchester for the Scottish services and kept the thick end of Diesel 185s going through Bolton, involved splitting the Lakes services at Bolton after attaching the Airport - Southport portion, and the Airport - Southport and Lakes - Airport paths would be handed over to be used by the Scottish services. Would require 4 185s to be allocated to running up to Southport, but also make a start on the "Northern Citylink" plans I had for when TPE N Electrification comes in and the 185s get re-deployed on express routes around Northern (in a combined franchise)

IIRC it came out at:

TPE South (Extended to Liverpool L St via CLC rather than Airport) 10dia
Airport - Lakes & Southport via Bolton 12dia
Blackpool N - Scarbrough 1tph & 1tph Scarbrough - York Shuttle 10dia
Calder Valley Semi Fasts (Airport - Leeds via Todmorden) 10dia.
Then either some spare units for doubling up, or possibly Buxton - Manchester.

 

[northwichcat]

I might have missed something (and probably have....)but if the new units will be used via Wigan for services to and from Scotland/Manchester will TPE not be using 185's to run alternative services through Bolton so that the already chronically overcrowded services do not get any worse? Northern Rail services alone can't cope.

I'm not sure how this works, but I already no that I struggle to board the train to and from Manchester as it is.

I'm personally hoping for a return to the 07 timetable with Barrow/Windermere alternating for the xx00MIA, xx16MAN, xx19MCO, xx33BON service path, with Blackpool North continuing as is. Taking fast Preston passengers away should be helpful, but only if the same level of stock keeps rolling through all the time.

The Windermere/Barrow interworking sounds good and would still allow a few units to be cascaded to North/South TPE. However, running them to the Airport from December 2013 may cause an issue.

The Northern Hub allows for 10 trains per hour on the Airport-Piccadilly line but that assumes additional capacity being provided between Slade Lane Junction and Piccadilly. It doesn't include a Cumbria service path, other than the Scottish service path. The services and frequencies suggested are:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and one from Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-on-Trent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax

There's been suggestions that the possible 3rd Sheffield service would be the intended final destination of Cumbria-Manchester services but that wouldn't be introduced as early as 2013.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Okay, highly unrealistic, but let's say the services from Preston towards Carlisle are spaced at 20-minute intervals. Services from London and services from Birmingham need to have an hourly pattern. How would that go?

x0.00 London to Glasgow
x0.20 Birmingham to Edinburgh
x0.40 Manchester to Glasgow
x1.00 London to Glasgow
x1.20 Birmingham to Glasgow
x1.40 Manchester to Edinburgh
x2.00 London to Glasgow

(Of course the actual intervals would be different but the order would be the same.)
So we now have the Edinburgh trains at intervals of 40 and 80 minutes, which is the best you can do.

I've read somewhere (RUS perhaps) that the WCML north of Preston can't be operated on a clockface timetable like this.
Fast passenger trains have to be flighted to avoid impacting on slower freight train capacity.
This means successive trains run close together, then an annoyingly long gap.
Also the "alternate GLC/EDB" (except the Euston only goes to GLC) gives odd gaps, especially at EDB which is arguably the more important route these days.
On top of which the two franchises aren't obliged to work together.

Be interested to see how they pick the optimum mix of services when the 350s get going.
Will VT be able to miss out some current stops in favour of TP? I doubt it.
I personally think some direct EUS-EDB services are needed (not routed via BHM), but that seems to go against the franchise map.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its why we are crossing fingers for the HS2 classic compatible upgrade program of existing lines, capacity north of Preston, Carstairs Junction and several other bottlenecks would be targets for improvement so that 110mph non tilting trains can keep up with 125mph tilting timings.

 

[CJ]

The Windermere/Barrow interworking sounds good and would still allow a few units to be cascaded to North/South TPE. However, running them to the Airport from December 2013 may cause an issue.

The Northern Hub allows for 10 trains per hour on the Airport-Piccadilly line but that assumes additional capacity being provided between Slade Lane Junction and Piccadilly. It doesn't include a Cumbria service path, other than the Scottish service path. The services and frequencies suggested are:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and one from Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-on-Trent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax

Just wondering, are there any plans to include a new Platform at the Airport (Platform 4) or are they hoping to have these services fit in with the current 3 platforms?

 

[Nym]

Oh, and not to mention that if one joins Southport and Lakes together (as sudgested above by me) then the paths in Manchester aren't a problem.

 

[IanXC]

This would be my preferred option to run the Hull - Manchester as doubled up 170s releasing 185s onto South TPE. I'm not sure if the numbers work out though as that would mean that there would only be a maximum of four trains being available to work the service (with one spare 2-car unit). But if it could be made to work then that's what I'd do (and wasn't that the original plan anyway before TPE had to lose a load of 185s to run Manchester - Scotland).

That's my preferred option too.

I worked the diagrams out once and I think it came to 5 diagrams required. I'll try and find it and confirm in a bit.

 

[WatcherZero]

Just wondering, are there any plans to include a new Platform at the Airport (Platform 4) or are they hoping to have these services fit in with the current 3 platforms?

Yes platform 4 is in the Northern Hub as a requirement if longer trains (from switching DMU to longer EMU) want to use the Airport station. A pair of DMU's can presently share a platform but a pair of EMU's sharing would take up too much room.

 

[Nym]

Yes platform 4 is in the Northern Hub as a requirement if longer trains (from switching DMU to longer EMU) want to use the Airport station. A pair of DMU's can presently share a platform but a pair of EMU's sharing would take up too much room.

Nearly...

The platforms are 197, 198 and 200m long, so you can fit two four car EMUs in at the moment, but if you have anything doubled up for a service then you're screwed.

 

[tbtc]

Okay, highly unrealistic, but let's say the services from Preston towards Carlisle are spaced at 20-minute intervals. Services from London and services from Birmingham need to have an hourly pattern. How would that go?

x0.00 London to Glasgow
x0.20 Birmingham to Edinburgh
x0.40 Manchester to Glasgow
x1.00 London to Glasgow
x1.20 Birmingham to Glasgow
x1.40 Manchester to Edinburgh
x2.00 London to Glasgow

(Of course the actual intervals would be different but the order would be the same.)

So we now have the Edinburgh trains at intervals of 40 and 80 minutes, which is the best you can do.

I like your attempt to "square the circle" - its impossible to link all of the southern places to all of the northern places at regular intervals without having some lopsided services.

One further complication is that if Liverpool gets a portion attached to some of the Manchester services (at Wigan?) then it'd need to be hourly as a bi-hourly Liverpool service would mean *all* Liverpool services going to Glasgow (or all to Edinburgh), rather than an even split. Not sure how to get round this.

As for the other points, would it make sense (after Chat Moss is electrified, but before Bolton/Huddersfield are electrified) for the Barrow service to be linked to the Hull service at Manchester? That'd solve the problem of the Scottish service taking the Manchester Airport path of the Barrow train? Dunno...

 

[Nym]

The Hull service is very likely to go to Liverpool. However, if the TPE Franchise is intergrated and more services become "Northern Citylink" with 1tph from the Calder Valley going to MIA, it could make sense to send 1tph onto Barrow/Windermere too from Victoria. With the slow via Dewsbry not being part of "Northern Citylink" and going onto oh I dunno, Wigan via Atherton?

 

[northwichcat]

Oh, and not to mention that if one joins Southport and Lakes together (as sudgested above by me) then the paths in Manchester aren't a problem.

Remember this is an issue from December 2013. How would you propose utilising rolling stock to allow for a portion working? The 185s aren't compatible with Sprinters, there won't be 185s available to put on to Southport services.

That seems to be leave two options, which would both require franchise re-gigging:
1. 156s or 158s are used. The TPE 170s are moved to a selection of express Northern routes to cover for the loss of Sprinters and the 185s off the Cumbria services cover for the loss of 170s at TPE.
2. Similar to the above but with the TPE 170s being used on the Southport/Cumbria services and 158s being put on the Manchester-Hull route.

One further complication is that if Liverpool gets a portion attached to some of the Manchester services (at Wigan?) then it'd need to be hourly as a bi-hourly Liverpool service would mean *all* Liverpool services going to Glasgow (or all to Edinburgh), rather than an even split. Not sure how to get round this.

Does Liverpool need to have both Glasgow and Edinburgh services though?

I'd suggest just a 2 hourly Liverpool-Edinburgh service as further up the line that would mean from Preston there would be:
* 11 car London to Glasgow trains hourly
* 5 car Birmingham to Edinburgh trains hourly

So it would seem to make sense for Edinburgh to get the 8 car EMUs and Glasgow to get the 4 car EMUs.

As for the other points, would it make sense (after Chat Moss is electrified, but before Bolton/Huddersfield are electrified) for the Barrow service to be linked to the Hull service at Manchester? That'd solve the problem of the Scottish service taking the Manchester Airport path of the Barrow train? Dunno...

I don't know how well that would work with crew signing as:

1. That would likely mean 170s going up to Cumbria.
2. Barrow to Hull would likely require a crew change. Doing that on platform 13/14 at Piccadilly may not be possible, doing that somewhere else may mean new routes for crews to learn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For anyone hoping the 350/4s have better interiors than the 185s there's bad news:

Nick Donovan of First TransPennine Express "This is really good news for customers across our network. We know that many of our services are busy and the procurement of an additional 40 carriages will help to provide a much needed increase in seating capacity in response to growing customer demand.

The interiors of the new units will be very similar to the comfortable and well regarded interior of the Class 185 'Pennine' units, currently seen operating the majority of TransPennine Express services.

I am also really pleased that this project will create about 200 new jobs across the North of England, including drivers, conductors and train maintenance staff.

The order will not see First TransPennine express lose any of their trains, and as such it is likely that all Class 170 units will be able to operate in four car formations.

 

[tbtc]

Does Liverpool need to have both Glasgow and Edinburgh services though?

I'd suggest just a 2 hourly Liverpool-Edinburgh service as further up the line that would mean from Preston there would be:
* 11 car London to Glasgow trains hourly
* 5 car Birmingham to Edinburgh trains hourly

So it would seem to make sense for Edinburgh to get the 8 car EMUs and Glasgow to get the 4 car EMUs.

Liverpool tends to have a lot more in common with Glasgow, maybe due to the similarities between the cities (industrial/ dockyards/ large Irish immigration etc).

There's no easy way of giving London/Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool direct services to Edinburgh/Glasgow without having some very lopsided timings

I don't know how well that would work with crew signing as:

1. That would likely mean 170s going up to Cumbria.
2. Barrow to Hull would likely require a crew change. Doing that on platform 13/14 at Piccadilly may not be possible, doing that somewhere else may mean new routes for crews to learn.

Just a suggestion (to tie up loose ends at Manchester when the Scottish service means through services from Barrow to Manchester Airport are going to be hard - changes may be easier at Huddersfield - the same points also apply to your suggestion of a service from Sheffield to Cumbria.

For anyone hoping the 350/4s have better interiors than the 185s there's bad news:

Nick Donovan of First TransPennine Express "This is really good news for customers across our network. We know that many of our services are busy and the procurement of an additional 40 carriages will help to provide a much needed increase in seating capacity in response to growing customer demand.

The interiors of the new units will be very similar to the comfortable and well regarded interior of the Class 185 'Pennine' units, currently seen operating the majority of TransPennine Express services.

I am also really pleased that this project will create about 200 new jobs across the North of England, including drivers, conductors and train maintenance staff.

The order will not see First TransPennine express lose any of their trains, and as such it is likely that all Class 170 units will be able to operate in four car formations.

This certainly seems to answer your previous query about whether the 350s will be 3+2 seating - sounds pretty certain they'll be 2+2

200 new jobs though? Exaggeration?

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I could see 4c of Preston having more use as the 185s can fit in them (my 185 train hit debris at Lostock and pulled into 4c one time) so there could be an Airport-Piccadilly-OR-Salford-Bolton-Chorley-Buckshaw-Preston sort-of-shuttle operating.
What will happen to the Windermere services, and what about Barrow? I could slightly see a parly Airport-Carlisle via the Cumbrian Coast semi-fast for Barrow but Windermere stokes me.

 

[tbtc]

I could slightly see a parly Airport-Carlisle via the Cumbrian Coast semi-fast for Barrow but Windermere stokes me.

I'm not sure I understand you, but there's a chance that Barrow will lose most of its Manchester services once the line through Bolton is electrified (rightly or wrongly)

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'm not sure I understand you, but there's a chance that Barrow will lose most of its Manchester services once the line through Bolton is electrified (rightly or wrongly)

Good job the 185s are staying, I can somewhat predict even services from Sheffield/Huddersfield to Barrow via Manchester, that may be worth a try.
The 350 service isn't going through Bolton AFAIK. It will turn off after Salford.

 

[Pumbaa]

200 new jobs though? Exaggeration?

Don't think so - new traincrew depots at Liverpool and somewhere else, plus more maintenance at Ardwick.

 

[WatcherZero]

Did seem a bit to me, Ardwick has around 150 staff today (something like that) so more than a hundred more to maintain 10 new vehicles seems excessive.

 

[MCR247]

New jobs for drivers and guards/TMs/conductors/whatever the right term is for TPE maybe?

 

[harz99]

Will VT be able to miss out some current stops in favour of TP? I doubt it.

Why not; that is exactly what happened at Lockerbie when TPE took over the Manchester-Scotland services.

 

[tbtc]

New jobs for drivers and guards/TMs/conductors/whatever the right term is for TPE maybe?

I accept that there will be new jobs created, but surely not two hundred jobs (for a ten train order)?

I'm all for good news, but exaggerating the numbers like this press release appears to have just devalues things

 

[IanXC]

That's my preferred option too.

I worked the diagrams out once and I think it came to 5 diagrams required. I'll try and find it and confirm in a bit.

Not even that close to being able to diagram 2x 170 on the Hull services, theres 6 diagrams for Hull - Manchester.

 

[northwichcat]

Liverpool tends to have a lot more in common with Glasgow, maybe due to the similarities between the cities (industrial/ dockyards/ large Irish immigration etc).

There's no easy way of giving London/Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool direct services to Edinburgh/Glasgow without having some very lopsided timings

I was thinking more about Liverpool services going to Edinburgh for capacity reasons. If they go to Glasgow they'll be a lot of carriages going between Preston and Glasgow compared to going between Preston and Edinburgh.

Remember a Liverpool to Scotland service will also make Scottish journeys more accessible to people on the Wirral and in the posher suburbs of Liverpool like Wavertree and Formby.

I don't know exactly how the Glasgow flows work but the Virgin London-Glasgow service seems to carry a lot of local North West passengers between Warrington and Carlisle.

the same points also apply to your suggestion of a service from Sheffield to Cumbria.

Network Rail are keen for a Sheffield-Preston service to be introduced and diverting/extending Cumbria TPE services to Sheffield seems to be a logical solution, opposed to extending the Preston to Hazel Grove service to Sheffield.

This certainly seems to answer your previous query about whether the 350s will be 3+2 seating - sounds pretty certain they'll be 2+2

I was referring to the new LM 350s when I said about 3+2 seating opposed to the new TPE 350s. I said that I imagined the TPE 350s will be very similar internally to the 185s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not even that close to being able to diagram 2x 170 on the Hull services, theres 6 diagrams for Hull - Manchester.

The standard hourly pattern between Hull and Manchester Piccadilly could work as 4 diagrams. There are some off-pattern services like the 06:00 Hull-Liverpool service, an additional 17:01 Hull-Huddersfield service and a Fridays Only 20:35 Hull-Manchester Airport service, which means more than 4 diagrams are needed in total.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 350 service isn't going through Bolton AFAIK. It will turn off after Salford.

It won't serve a Salford station though. It'll take the same route out of Manchester that the Llandudno service currently uses.

 

[IanXC]

The standard hourly pattern between Hull and Manchester Piccadilly could work as 4 diagrams. There are some off-pattern services like the 06:00 Hull-Liverpool service, an additional 17:01 Hull-Huddersfield service and a Fridays Only 20:35 Hull-Manchester Airport service, which means more than 4 diagrams are needed in total.

The trouble with that is that you end up with 6 minute turn arounds at both ends of the route, which clearly wouldn't be a very resilient timetable.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

It won't serve a Salford station though. It'll take the same route out of Manchester that the Llandudno service currently uses.

Ah right, as ATW don't serve Salford that's about right.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why not; that is exactly what happened at Lockerbie when TPE took over the Manchester-Scotland services.

Yes I agree about Lockerbie.
It's more about the Lancs/Cumbria stations like Wigan and Oxenholme/Penrith I was thinking of .
TP and VT (or whoever runs WC) both have their minimum calling patterns, and it's very hard to devise a skip-stop pattern around these without disadvantaging somebody.

Eg if TP call at Wigan then you might think VT could drop their call and speed up their Scotland trains. Except the Wigan lot would object to a reduction of London/Birmingham trains.

Way back in 1974 when the WCML was first electrified to Glasgow, most long-distance trains were non-stop Crewe-Preston (and BHM/MAN trains divided at Carstairs). Today that does not seem possible, even though the feeling is that there are "too many stops".

It's noticeable that the ECML seems to have a better service pattern north of York than the WCML has north of Preston.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

When TP serve Wigan, I'll assume only a few London/Brum trains a day will stop with more non-stop to Warrington. However that would seem awkward as Preston-Warrington-London, maybe a Northampton stop would be popular.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

When TP serve Wigan, I'll assume only a few London/Brum trains a day will stop with more non-stop to Warrington. However that would seem awkward as Preston-Warrington-London, maybe a Northampton stop would be popular.

I think it's a bad move to deprive Wigan of its current hourly services to the West Midlands / London when the TPE services get diverted, it and Warrington Bank Quay can regularly produce 20-30 passengers for each hourly service to both destinations. In lieu I would suggest using the spare WCML path for a Euston-Keynes-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Lancaster hourly service, and cutting Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster from the current Euston-Glasgow trains.

 

[northwichcat]

The trouble with that is that you end up with 6 minute turn arounds at both ends of the route, which clearly wouldn't be a very resilient timetable.

In reality they have 11 minutes at both ends if the train isn't delayed due to 5 minutes padding being in the timetable.

The unit arriving from Hull at Manchester has always formed the next service back to Hull when ever I've seen it. I don't know so much about the Hull end but I'm sure the last time I caught a Manchester train at Hull it was formed using a unit that arrived a few minutes earlier.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When TP serve Wigan, I'll assume only a few London/Brum trains a day will stop with more non-stop to Warrington. However that would seem awkward as Preston-Warrington-London, maybe a Northampton stop would be popular.

TPE serving Wigan is not a certainty. While the Northern Hub plans mention more fast services between Wigan and Manchester, Network Rail and DfT have stated that the Wigan diversion for the Scottish services is permanent so more spaced is reserved for long distance travellers instead of commuters. Replacing Bolton commuters with Wigan commuters wouldn't seem to achieve that benefit.

 

[IanXC]

In reality they have 11 minutes at both ends if the train isn't delayed due to 5 minutes padding being in the timetable.

The unit arriving from Hull at Manchester has always formed the next service back to Hull when ever I've seen it. I don't know so much about the Hull end but I'm sure the last time I caught a Manchester train at Hull it was formed using a unit that arrived a few minutes earlier.

Hmm. I don't really know about the Manchester end, but its pretty rare for there not to be a 170 sat in Hull Station. On a number of occasions I've been already sat on the outbound xx.40 service when the Manchester arrival pulls in.