Revised Northern Hub plans proposed by DfT today

[John55]

I have also seen what TPE have submitted as a new North TPE timetable to ORR for May 2014 and there is no Newcastle-Manchester Airport service included as it's replaced by a Manchester Airport-York service and a Liverpool-Newcastle via Chat Moss service. This seems to be one step towards the illustrative example given by DfT.

That timetable is not the post northern hub timetable as none of the hub works will be complete by then (or very few). I am pointing out there is lots of time to go before the final timetable is produced and many things can and will happen before then.

I can imagine the North East local authorities may agitate to retain a through service to Manchester Airport for example. The Illustrative options list of services published yesterday included a Manchester - Hull service which will be diesel powered so on that basis there may yet be a Manchester - Middlesborough diesel service.

Given that the organisation specifying the next Northern and/or Trans Pennine franchise may well not be the DfT I would not be surprised at anything.

 

[Beveridges]

* Buxton – Piccadilly service linked across Manchester with Liverpool – Warrington – Manchester service (assumes Castlefield capacity enhancement).
* Liverpool – Earlestown – Piccadilly local service electrified, extended to Manchester Airport and frequency increase to half-hourly.
* Local service from Piccadilly to Huddersfield (replaces service from Victoria).
* Local services from Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield, Marple (both routes), Hope Valley, Stoke, Crewe, Chester via Altrincham, Bolton and Preston revised to match current patterns of demand.
* Services from Manchester Airport revised to match current patterns of demand.
* Services from Liverpool, Southport, Wigan, Blackburn and Clitheroe to Victoria extended to
Stalybridge or Rochdale and revised to match current patterns of demand.
* Blackburn/Accrington via Todmorden to Victoria diesel services introduced.
* Wigan – Kirby becomes self-contained diesel service.

Do the paths exist for all this? Especially all the extra traffic that would have to go through Picc 13/14 and Oxford Road (extra Picc-Bolton's, extra Liverpool-Man Airports, etc)

 

[swt_passenger]

Do the paths exist for all this? Especially all the extra traffic that would have to go through Picc 13/14 and Oxford Road

Well half the extra traffic would be going through Picc 15/16 wouldn't it - which is a key feature of the plans?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As someone who would be affected I am looking forward to some new routes to operate, will make a nice change and as we all know the North desperately needs this.

 

[pemma]

The Illustrative options list of services published yesterday included a Manchester - Hull service which will be diesel powered so on that basis there may yet be a Manchester - Middlesborough diesel service.

Having one diesel operated service on North TPE is to be expected. Overnight and Sunday diversions via Wakefield Kirkgate and Brighouse will need diesel units and drivers who sign North TPE also signing those routes and diesel units.

Manchester-Hull is a shorter diesel service than Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough, so the cost:benefit ratio of electrification would be higher with Manchester-Hull as diesel.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With Middlesbrough the situation is unclear. If they gained a Birmingham or London train in lieu of the Airport train then there may be more people who benefit than lose out.

Perhaps the North-East package-holiday operators currently using First TPE and Manchester Airport will now be making plans to better utilise their own airport more in future years rather than to send their customers so many miles south as part of the travel arrangements. Since I was assured that there were few such package-holiday passengers using Manchester Airport, this miniscule percentage should now be discounted when calculating the need for a service from Manchester Airport to either Newcastle or Middlesbrough. Incidentally, why was their ever a need envisaged in the first place for both Newcastle and Middlesbrough to both have services to Manchester Airport?

 

[tbtc]

why was their ever a need envisaged in the first place for both Newcastle and Middlesbrough to both have services to Manchester Airport?

As before, it's not because there's necessarily a significant demand to travel from one end of the route to the other (in the same way that there's not a lot of people in Cockfosters needing a London Underground link to Heathrow or a huge number of people in Altricham wanting a direct tram to Bury market), just that it ties up two ends of the route.

It's not as if there's a significant demand to travel from Liverpool to Scarborough either (or nobody in Scarborough/ Hull wanting to go to Manchester Airport), just that there's demand for one of the four TPE services an hour to serve Liverpool and demand for one of them to serve Scarborough, and those two have been formed by the same Manchester - Leeds service.

 

[142094]

Although there will be a few people going from Middlesbrough and Newcastle through to Manchester Airport, you'll find that most trips are quite short (e.g. Newcastle - York/Leeds).

 

[hwl]

I think the North West enhancements were basically covered by the new 350s, slightly more than half of the 319s (with the other share going to FGW) and then cascading the DMUs released on to other services - which will mean Pacers and 150s would not be replaced by cascaded 319s. Although, there are now issues relating to when the 319s will be ready to cascade.

There are then extra EMUs now required for Yorkshire locals and North TPE electric services.

I think were are looking at additional rolling stock orders overall, the question will be the rolling stock balance between EMU and DMU and which operator has to lease the more expensive new rolling stock. There isn't an efficient obvious solution as regards a TOC having all new identical EMUs without leaving some existing in store / scrapped.

FGW (or successors)
Will probably need at least another 4x 319 to operate the branch lines (if they continue to operate as branch lines) or even more units if they operate them to Paddington due to yesterday's additional electrification announcements. The HLOS also outline clearance work for cascaded DMUs in the Bristol area i.e a new home for 165/166 which with some resulting moves will release some 15x to eliminate 14x.
As FGW or successor will have new IEPs, new "stopping" EMUs at the same time is unrealistic.

Chiltern as the nominal EWR operator:
Will need some additional rolling stock which will probably be a mix of cascaded EMU and DMU again 319 and 165/166. New rolling stock for Chiltern is unrealistic until they electrify the rest (or most of). They already have some of the most diverse rolling stock of any TOC especially as they are the smallest.

ATW or successor:
Lots of 315s but not enough spare for all the valleys even after Crossrail leaves a few more spare, so some DMUs under the wires?

Walsall and Rugeley Trent Valley will also need some EMUs

Northern /TPE
Even with some services going over to EMUs there won't be enough 319s (as per previous threads) so some DMUs under the wires or new EMU order with some cascades? The only other spare EMU coming up I can think of would be the ex Heathrow connect 360s when cross rail takes over but there are only 4 of those.
Then there are the non electrified routes being strengthened e.g.
"Leeds – Harrogate strengthened by revised train formations and additional Leeds – Horsforth shuttles." from the DfT HLOS illustrative options document which would mean at least 4 extra DMUs needed and there are other similar examples too.

Unless more electrification is announced for early CP6 (i.e. Leeds - Harrogate (-York) and Leeds - Sheffield or more north west for starters) and some short term (2-3 year) derogations for DDA on 14x and some 15x (153?) there will have to be an additional DMU order as well - the question is how large.

 

[Beveridges]

Where are the 185s going once replaced by EMU on some routes?

 

[John55]

Having one diesel operated service on North TPE is to be expected. Overnight and Sunday diversions via Wakefield Kirkgate and Brighouse will need diesel units and drivers who sign North TPE also signing those routes and diesel units.

Manchester-Hull is a shorter diesel service than Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough, so the cost:benefit ratio of electrification would be higher with Manchester-Hull as diesel.

I am sure the diesel service to Hull is to provide a through service and the issue of diversions is completely secondary if not tertiary.

I think you have your cost to benefit and benefit to cost ratios mixed up in the second part. But in any case not relevant because in 2017 the government will be publishing the CP6 requirements which will move things on. This will be before the North Trans-Pennine electrification is complete so additional requirements will be added and the detail of current discussions overtaken by events.

 

[pemma]

Where are the 185s going once replaced by EMU on some routes?

A new rolling stock strategy hasn't been announced. As you say they are only be replaced by EMUs on some routes, so if the whole fleet does move elsewhere something will need to be brought in as replacement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where are the 185s going once replaced by EMU on some routes?

Going to strengthen the existing First TPE class 185 routes that will still require diesel traction.

 

[Stats]

Interesting to see how this fits with the East Coast consultation which suggests removing York-Middlesbrough (plus Cleethorpes and Scarborough) from TPE and creating a multipurpose franchise.

It is, but I did suspect something was afoot when I saw the East Coast consultation.

How does capacity look on the ECML to Newcastle with the proposed service pattern? Does that tell us anything about Middlesborough's service?

There isn't any capacity north of Northallerton for an additional 100mph service. The RUS states that it could only be provided at the expense of a LDHS path. So perhaps you could divert the via Leeds XC service to Middlesbrough to compensate for the loss of the TPE service otheriwse the Government is going to have to come up with more money for capacity enhancements in the North-East. But then, the Government thinks the North stops at Leeds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps the North-East package-holiday operators currently using First TPE and Manchester Airport will now be making plans to better utilise their own airport more in future years rather than to send their customers so many miles south as part of the travel arrangements. Since I was assured that there were few such package-holiday passengers using Manchester Airport, this miniscule percentage should now be discounted when calculating the need for a service from Manchester Airport to either Newcastle or Middlesbrough. Incidentally, why was their ever a need envisaged in the first place for both Newcastle and Middlesbrough to both have services to Manchester Airport?

I suspect the purpose of these services is less about connecting the North-East to Manchester Airport for package holidays which are plentiful from Newcastle and LBA, but more about providing a connection to long-haul routes, particularly trans-atlantic routes.

 

[pemma]

I suspect the purpose of these services is less about connecting the North-East to Manchester Airport for package holidays which are plentiful from Newcastle and LBA, but more about providing a connection to long-haul routes, particularly trans-atlantic routes.

Yes Jet2 have significantly increased the destinations offered from Leeds-Bradford and Newcastle airports, while in recent years PIA have introduced direct Pakistan flights from Leeds-Bradford, reducing the need for some passengers to travel to Manchester Airport.

KLM are pushing through fares for Liverpool to many non-European destinations via Amsterdam. I don't know how many people take advantage of that and how many travel further to Manchester to catch direct flights.

 

[swt_passenger]

There isn't any capacity north of Northallerton for an additional 100mph service. The RUS states that it could only be provided at the expense of a LDHS path. So perhaps you could divert the via Leeds XC service to Middlesbrough to compensate for the loss of the TPE service otheriwse the Government is going to have to come up with more money for capacity enhancements in the North-East.

Might that be why they said:

The Secretary of State recognises the importance of the East Coast Main Line in linking Scotland, the North East, Yorkshire and Eastern England with London. In addition to the schemes already funded, she seeks further improvement in capacity and reduction in journey times and believes there are good business cases for both.

Network Rail had put forward a couple of northeast capacity improvements in their IIP:

 Darlington station improvements;
 Ferryhill – Newcastle capacity enhancement;

...so maybe they can meet that HLOS requirement, using their existing plans for the area. Maybe they wouldn't automatically result in a specific mention in the HLOS, which is really looking at top level requirements?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

KLM are pushing through fares for Liverpool to many non-European destinations via Amsterdam. I don't know how many people take advantage of that and how many travel further to Manchester to catch direct flights.

KLM have recently pulled out of Liverpool.
They have a sizeable share of long-haul connections out of Manchester via Amsterdam, and from experience it's a better option than going via London.

 

[pemma]

KLM have recently pulled out of Liverpool.
They have a sizeable share of long-haul connections out of Manchester via Amsterdam, and from experience it's a better option than going via London.

Didn't realise that. KLM are usually cheaper than BA via Gatwick/Heathrow. I've not been to Amsterdam Airport so I don't know what it's like to change planes there.

 

[trickyvegas]

Didn't realise that. KLM are usually cheaper than BA via Gatwick/Heathrow. I've not been to Amsterdam Airport so I don't know what it's like to change planes there.

It's pretty straight-forward at Schipol, it's one of the few airports I find pleasant to kill time - nice bed style recliner seats. If you have a more than a couple of hours to spare, there's a very good rail link straight into central Amsterdam.

 

[Oswyntail]

I can't find the reference, but did I see something about extra coaches for the Wharfedale/Airedale services? Is this likely to be achieved by downgrading to 323s, or 319/321s? Or what?

 

[507 001]

Very likely. That was proposed by GMPTE before they became TfGM before the North West electrification was announced.

Just out of interest, why would it have anything to do with GMPTE considering the majority of that service is within merseytravel territory? Not disputing, just wondering

 

[pemma]

I can't find the reference, but did I see something about extra coaches for the Wharfedale/Airedale services?

Yes.

Is this likely to be achieved by downgrading to 323s, or 319/321s? Or what?

A new rolling stock strategy hasn't been announced.

Refurbished 333s running Manchester Airport to York and Manchester to Leeds with new or cascaded stock replacing the 333s could certainly be an option. Additional commuter EMUs will be needed for Huddersfield-Leeds stoppers.

Just out of interest, why would it have anything to do with GMPTE considering the majority of that service is within merseytravel territory? Not disputing, just wondering

Because they wanted the service to run to Manchester Victoria and not turn around at Warrington Bank Quay so places like Patricroft get an additional service to Manchester in the off-peak period.

I questioned the thinking behind places like Huyton losing a Warrington Bank Quay service (and possible WCML connections) and was told that the trains are practically empty arriving at and leaving Warrington.

 

[142094]

Refurbished 333s running Manchester Airport to York and Manchester to Leeds with new or cascaded stock replacing the 333s could certainly be an option.

Cue vocal protests from those living in Shipley and Ilkley. They will not let the 333s go without a fight.

 

[tbtc]

Refurbished 333s running Manchester Airport to York and Manchester to Leeds with new or cascaded stock replacing the 333s could certainly be an option

It'd be a fairly poor option. Bear in mind that the 333s have 3+2 seats with only one toilet per four coach train. Is that really a step forward from a younger 158? The 333s are already a dozen years old.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cue vocal protests from those living in Shipley and Ilkley. They will not let the 333s go without a fight.

I think it depends on what they are replaced by. Replacing the four coach 333s with older shorter 323s was seen as A Bad Thing when it was suggested a few years ago. Replacing the 333s with modern longer trains (maybe ones without 3+2 seats) may prove more popular...

 

[pemma]

It'd be a fairly poor option. Bear in mind that the 333s have 3+2 seats with only one toilet per four coach train. Is that really a step forward from a younger 158? The 333s are already a dozen years old.

I said 'refurbished' before 333s. Would they not be suitable for TPE if they were refurbished more like the Heathrow Express 332s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cue vocal protests from those living in Shipley and Ilkley. They will not let the 333s go without a fight.

Well let them keep the 4 car 333s then and somewhere else can have some 5 or 6 car 379s or 380s.

 

[tbtc]

I said 'refurbished' before 333s. Would they not be suitable for TPE if they were refurbished more like the Heathrow Express 332s?

They are still commuter EMUs, however you dress it up - would you want 3+2 seats for journeys over an hour long?

TPE electrification will require something more suitable for longer distance routes.

 

[pemma]

They are still commuter EMUs, however you dress it up

You've argued in favour of the commuter style door layout on the 185s before!

The 350s are an AC version of a commuter train and they're used on much longer services than Manchester Airport to York.

would you want 3+2 seats for journeys over an hour long?

I just said refurbished with a Heathrow Express style interior, they wouldn't still have 3+2 seating under my suggestion!

I'd like to see 2 carriage trains with 3+2 seating replaced with 3 carriage trains with 2+2 seating on Northern services over 1 hour in length, but that's not going to happen.

TPE electrification will require something more suitable for longer distance routes.

The 333s are 100mph capable, not that they ever go above 90mph on their current routes.

Liverpool-Newcastle will need a proper Intercity electric unit.

 

[tbtc]

You've argued in favour of the commuter style door layout on the 185s before!

Yes, but I was referring to the 3+2 seating on a 333 as being a "commuter" layout - I didn't realise you planned to refurbish them as 2+2 too.

Given the obvious need for more EMUs, I think we'd need something suitable for the transpennine route rather than heavily refurbishing a 15+ year old unit.

 

[pemma]

Given the obvious need for more EMUs, I think we'd need something suitable for the transpennine route rather than heavily refurbishing a 15+ year old unit.

So if the 333s are replaced on their current routes with larger trains where would you put the 333s?

If you think heavily refurbished 333s are unsuitable for a Piccadilly-Selby semi-fast and a Manchester Airport-York express, do I also assume on the same basis you think heavily refurbished older 319s would be completely unsuitable for Liverpool/Manchester Airport to Blackpool services?

 

[irongecko]

So is poor Barrow being dropped from tpe as predicted by a few people?