Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[northwichcat]

As far as the Manchester area is concerned, the proposed timetables are all exceptionally good news - I'm struggling to find the catch! 1/2 hourly for Macclesfield, Mid Cheshire and Blackburn, restoration of the 'Scotch' TPE services via Bolton and substitute service to Wigan NW, 3 per hour on the Calder Valley, extension of Hazel Grove stoppers to New Mills. The only slight downside is further splitting the fast Leeds trains between Victoria and Piccadilly, but the Orsdall Chord will solve that eventually.

Yes good news for the local lines. The only downside I can see is 3tph Manchester-Sheffield won't go ahead.

 

[Wolfie]

Government never asked Porterbrook to do it and gave every indication they wouldn't be interested, they've also not as yet banned them from other franchises. Porterbrook don't have a leg to stand on for speculating with their own money on the chance the Government would do a U-turn over pacers.

I'm not saying you are wrong BUT Porterbrook are not stupid. If they had been told Pacers had zero future they wouldn't have wasted their money. Also given the ITT has only just been issued they were not speculating on a U-turn. I will say though that you have obviously never been in negotiations with the Treasury. Money really is all they care about. If refurbished Pacers reduce subsidy and/or increase TOC payments they WILL be interested and they, not DfT, ultimately hold the purse strings. Also the worst of austerity is yet to come... look at the predictions for DfT's budget (optimistically 18%+ cuts). I hope I'm wrong but l fear this is 'jam tomorrow' before an election and not realistic...

 

[class26]

I'm not saying you are wrong BUT Porterbrook are not stupid. If they had been told Pacers had zero future they wouldn't have wasted their money. Also given the ITT has only just been issued they were not speculating on a U-turn. I will say though that you have obviously never been in negotiations with the Treasury. Money really is all they care about. If refurbished Pacers reduce subsidy and/or increase TOC payments they WILL be interested and they, not DfT, ultimately hold the purse strings. Also the worst of austerity is yet to come... look at the predictions for DfT's budget (optimistically 18%+ cuts). I hope I'm wrong but l fear this is 'jam tomorrow' before an election and not realistic...

well if I understood it correctly they didnt pay much more than the scrap value anyway so not that much would be lost.

 

[crehld]

What are you dribbling on about? I have no idea what unions have said on the matter. I expressed my surprise at the unions seemingly not opposing a ban. Guards 'hiding' in the back cab is the extreme opposite to banning them from it. Even the most customer friendly Guards use the rear cab.

Then I must have misunderstood your previous post - it read to me as if you objected to staff working in the body train. Sorry for any misinterpretation

 

[8J]

Ive not heard of a policy regarding guards being banned from the back cab?

 

[daniel3982]

Not much for Sheffield in this (except for the additional Worksop service).

 

[po8crg]

Does the Transpennine ITT say no Pacers?

It would allow new Pacers.

5.4.2.24 Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the TPE Train Fleet:
i. The class 185 and class 350 multiple units that are currently comprised within the TPE Train Fleet (subject to the requirement to sub-lease Class 185 units to the Northern Franchise for an initial period until December 2017);
ii. Diesel multiple units that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x and that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees, but that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;
iii. Up to four 2-car diesel multiple units of similar characteristics to TPE’s Class 170 units must be assumed for bid purposes to be leased until December 2017, as a proxy for the arrangements that the Department envisages will be put in place with the incumbent operator to mitigate the transfer of these units to the Chiltern Franchise with effect from February 2016;
iv. Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise; and
v. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.

 

[Wolfie]

well if I understood it correctly they didnt pay much more than the scrap value anyway so not that much would be lost.

I think you are confusing Vivarail, who are proposing to modify ex-London Underground D class trains to DMUs, with Porterbrook a large ROSCO which inter alia owns class 143/144 Pacers...

 

[Deerfold]

I think you are confusing Vivarail, who are proposing to modify ex-London Underground D class trains to DMUs, with Porterbrook a large ROSCO which inter alia owns class 143/144 Pacers...

Did Porterbrook pay much for the Pacers?

 

[northwichcat]

Did Porterbrook pay much for the Pacers?

Porterbrook will probably have got their investment back on Pacers long before the current Coalition came to power.

 

[Wolfie]

Porterbrook will probably have got their investment back on Pacers long before the current Coalition came to power.

Take a look at who owns Porterbrook and you'll see why I expect litigation. Having been involved in a number of 'unloseable' (quote bloody expensive QC acting for TSol) judicial reviews which HMG lost I have limited (to put it mildly) confidence in DfT's case...

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise

Loco hauled Liverpool to Newcastle? (preferably with a 'Peak').

 

[daniel3982]

Is there the capacity South of Piccadilly for these additional services to Macclesfield, Stockport & Northwich?

 

[northwichcat]

Is there the capacity South of Piccadilly for these additional services to Macclesfield, Stockport & Northwich?

Presumably the idea is the paths freed between Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction by the North TPE changes will be used for those services.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

5.4.2.24 Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the TPE Train Fleet:
i. The class 185 and class 350 multiple units that are currently comprised within the TPE Train Fleet (subject to the requirement to sub-lease Class 185 units to the Northern Franchise for an initial period until December 2017);
ii. Diesel multiple units that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x and that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees, but that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;
iii. Up to four 2-car diesel multiple units of similar characteristics to TPE’s Class 170 units must be assumed for bid purposes to be leased until December 2017, as a proxy for the arrangements that the Department envisages will be put in place with the incumbent operator to mitigate the transfer of these units to the Chiltern Franchise with effect from February 2016;
iv. Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise; and
v. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.

I'm confused, I've read the bolded part three times and still carn't work out if if excluding bidders for TPE from taking on ex-Scotrail 170's or allowing it.

If it is prohibited then what will TPE take on to cover the shortfall then the rest of the 170's move to Chiltern?

 

[IanXC]

What is the reason for requiring a "parliamentary" service of at least one train in one direction a week from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge via Phillips Park Jn and Guide Bridge?

TPE have been operating a Liverpool to Newcastle service via this route since the Victoria services started - presumably withdrawing it would require closure of the route to passenger service and all that that entails!

 

[northwichcat]

I'm confused, I've read the bolded part three times and still carn't work out if if excluding bidders for TPE from taking on ex-Scotrail 170's or allowing it.

If it is prohibited then what will TPE take on to cover the shortfall then the rest of the 170's move to Chiltern?

Strangely it seems Northern are prohibited from taking on 16xs and 18xs and allowed to take on 15xs and 17xs but for TPE it's the other way around.

OK 15xs and 17xs are the most appropriate types of unit for Northern but why prohibit Northern from taking on 16xs but not TPE?

 

[eastwestdivide]

attempting to rewrite clause 5.4.2.24 / ii from a few posts above:

ii. Diesel multiple units...
- that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x
and
- that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees,
but
- that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator (either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it)


meaning (maybe):
"surplus stock (for the reasons given), currently with another operator, but not those classes mentioned"

which doesn't leave much to choose from, does it?

 

[northwichcat]

which doesn't leave much to choose from, does it?

165s*, 166s*, 168s*, 180s, loco-hauled (including using the 442s)

* The Chiltern ones aren't going to be freed up while I doubt the FGW ones will be freed up quickly enough and then they'll be clearance issues.

 

[Gareth]

So, the Liverpool-Manchester Airport service will stay on the Chat Moss? It's often been suggested on here that if and when the Scarborough TPE service transfers from CLC to Chat Moss, that the Man Airport service would be sent in the opposite direction to compensate. I can only see mentioned a new semi-fast service on the CLC, which suggests it's an entirely additional service and not one relocated from Chat Moss. So, if I have this correct, the fast/semi-fast services between Liverpool & Manchester are proposed as...

Chat Moss

Liverpool-Newcastle via Man Vic (TPE)
Liverpool-Scarborough via Man Vic (TPE)
Liverpool-Manchester Airport via Man Picc (Northern)

CLC

Liverpool-Norwich (EMT)
Liverpool-Manchester Piccadilly (Northern)

Is this correct?

 

[northwichcat]

Chat Moss

Liverpool-Newcastle via Man Vic (TPE)
Liverpool-Scarborough via Man Vic (TPE)
Liverpool-Manchester Airport (Northern)

CLC

Liverpool-Norwich (EMT)
Liverpool-Manchester Piccadilly (Northern)

Is this correct?

Unlikely regarding Scarborough. More likely half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle and if Scarborough and Middlesbrough remain with TPE they'll be Airport services.

 

[Philip]

Do we know which units will be running the new enhanced Barrow service?

 

[northwichcat]

Anyone noticed the unusual Ellesmere Port requirement for a Ellesmere Port-Manchester service arriving at Victoria between 08:00 and 08:59 but the next direct Ellesmere Port-Manchester service not until after the evening peak and no services in the other direction!

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there the capacity South of Piccadilly for these additional services to Macclesfield, Stockport & Northwich?

Presumably the idea is the paths freed between Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction by the North TPE changes will be used for those services.

Yes, this is stated in the Consultation Response document:

From December 2017,
TPE’s hourly service that currently operates from Liverpool to Leeds and
beyond via Warrington Central and Manchester Piccadilly will be diverted to
operate via Newton-le-Willows and Manchester Victoria. This will allow TPE
to operate a regular half-hourly service pattern between Liverpool, Leeds
and beyond. It will also avoid the need for TPE trains to weave across the
throat of Manchester Piccadilly station, which in turn frees up capacity for the
package of additional services we are specifying between central and south
Manchester; bringing improvements to Macclesfield, New Mills Newtown and
the mid-Cheshire line.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407939/northern-and-tpe-stakeholder-briefing-document-and-consultation-response.pdf

165s*, 166s*, 168s*, 180s, loco-hauled (including using the 442s).

What about 22x's? I assume "diesel multiple units" can include DEMUs.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

attempting to rewrite clause 5.4.2.24 / ii from a few posts above:

ii. Diesel multiple units...
- that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x
and
- that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees,
but
- that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator (either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it)


meaning (maybe):
"surplus stock (for the reasons given), currently with another operator, but not those classes mentioned"

which doesn't leave much to choose from, does it?

About as clear as mud then Wouldn't loco hauled 442 carriages have loading/unloading issues on the TPE core? What about new build stock like a bi-mode unit that could be converted to EMU on completion of electrification?

 

[northwichcat]

Do we know which units will be running the new enhanced Barrow service?

No. All we know is they'll have to be higher spec regional standard trains for longer services and that Northern will get new diesel trains (120 carriages) plus possible cascades of Sprinters and/or Turbostars, with the Pacers being killed off.

One bidder may propose refurbished 158s for the higher spec trains, another may propose the new trains will be the higher spec trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about 22x's? I assume "diesel multiple units" can include DEMUs.

Could do if the West Coast franchise dispenses of Voyagers.

 

[Gareth]

Unlikely regarding Scarborough. More likely half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle and if Scarborough and Middlesbrough remain with TPE they'll be Airport services.

That does make sense, actually. Thanks.

 

[po8crg]

165s*, 166s*, 168s*, 180s, loco-hauled (including using the 442s)

* The Chiltern ones aren't going to be freed up while I doubt the FGW ones will be freed up quickly enough and then they'll be clearance issues.

That clause only relates to multiple units - loco-hauled is covered by several very long paragraphs in 5.4.2.25, which I won't bother to copy and paste.

Basically, anything they can guarantee (ie have a signed agreement from the owner) and anything they can convince DfT that they will be able to get.

Note that this won't stop the franchise using other trains, but they have to be able to demonstrate that they can operate the franchise with only the trains obtained according to these two clauses - so anything else will not be counted in terms of winning the bid.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sorry, still don't see the requirement to staff stations, I'll have a look in the other section you mention for ticket barriers later on.

Sorry I wasn't clear, wasn't a specific requirement to staff stations but that a train could not be scheduled to operate with a driver and no other staff on board without the facilities/customer service being available from stations instead.

 

[po8crg]

I'm not sure what the 442 proposal is about. Could be loco-hauled, I guess, but perhaps Angel have a retractioning idea to plonk a panto on top?