TPE 350s Scotland

[gimmea50anyday]

To me 350s made sense as a stopgap and to go to LM afterwards as the main operator of 350s, thus allowing their south WCML commuter services to be operated by a single fleet. It would always have made sense for a follow-on order of whatever electrics TPE get (or indeed something else e.g. LHCS) to replace in due course.

We're scheduled to receive the 442's..........

 

[Bletchleyite]

We're scheduled to receive the 442's..........

Ah, yes, forgot about those.

If you do, do yourself a favour and refurb them to the standard of the ATW Mk3 LHCS. The current refurb is a mucky, cheap half-job.

 

[pemma]

We're scheduled to receive the 442's..........

It's not scheduled it's an option. Until the franchise is awarded we don't know if that option will be taken up.

Although, loco-hauled on Manchester-Scotland is a way of providing more capacity ahead of a new electric order and allowing some electric stock to be displaced so that Northern can offer 'regional express' standard trains without spending a lot or using diesels under the wires.

 

[DarloRich]

I find this thread strange. I use TPE often on the route from Manchester via Preston to Cumbria or Scotland. It is often cheaper than Virgin.

The trains are 350's ( with plugs) and seem quite decent. The trains are often busy, at least as far as Preston, but no where near as busy as a similar 350 into Euston. I have always liked the 350's and think they are fine for this route and if you don't want them we will have them back on LM tomorrow please

The 185's are somewhat less pleasent on this route but not terribly so although i would happily see the 91's cascaded onto this route

 

[pemma]

The trains are 350's ( with plugs) and seem quite decent. The trains are often busy, at least as far as Preston, but no where near as busy as a similar 350 into Euston.

Unsurprisingly both routes have quieter and busier services. I've been on 4 car 350s on the southern part of the WCML where all the passengers could easily fit in to 2 carriages and not even occupy all the seats in that half of the train. Similarly I've seen 8 car 350s at Piccadilly platform 14 where you could close off 3 carriages and everyone would still have a seat. I've also seen 6 car 185s arrive at Preston from Scotland where there are more passengers than seats. I've never seen an overcrowded 8 car 350 on any route, although I'm not doubting it happens on both TPE and LM.

Unless you have average loading numbers for all services and formations for those services it's impossible to compare which is busier.

 

[DarloRich]

Unsurprisingly both routes have quieter and busier services. I've been on 4 car 350s on the southern part of the WCML where all the passengers could easily fit in to 2 carriages and not even occupy all the seats in that half of the train. Similarly I've seen 8 car 350s at Piccadilly platform 14 where you could close off 3 carriages and everyone would still have a seat. I've also seen 6 car 185s arrive at Preston from Scotland where there are more passengers than seats. I've never seen an overcrowded 8 car 350 on any route, although I'm not doubting it happens on both TPE and LM.

Unless you have average loading numbers for all services and formations for those services it's impossible to compare which is busier.

My statement is based upon personal experience of using similar trains at similar times of the day during both weekdays and weekends. There is no science behind it other than personal observation

 

[sprinterguy]

I find this thread strange. I use TPE often on the route from Manchester via Preston to Cumbria or Scotland. It is often cheaper than Virgin.

The trains are 350's ( with plugs) and seem quite decent. The trains are often busy, at least as far as Preston, but no where near as busy as a similar 350 into Euston. I have always liked the 350's and think they are fine for this route and if you don't want them we will have them back on LM tomorrow please

It's surprising just how busy the Manchester to Scotland route has gotten in recent times. I've never been on a TPE service over the route that hasn't been full, and often standing, even at off peak times, particularly from Carlisle and down, and that's on the full range of 3, 4, 6 and 8 carriage trains. Clear evidence of how the regular, frequent service has helped to grow patronage compared to the infrequent trains that were operated by Virgin Crosscountry.

I'll grant you that that's still nowhere near as busy as a peak time Desiro into Euston (I remember whisking past them on a Virgin Pendolino back when I worked down there, and thinking how lucky I was!), but it's an impressively solid level of demand for what used to seem like an almost "forgotten" route.

 

[Haydn1971]

I wouldn't say infrequent trains by CrossCountry - more non-existent ! From what I can tell, the only people going direct between the two are TPE

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't say infrequent trains by CrossCountry - more non-existent ! From what I can tell, the only people going direct between the two are TPE

He's referring to what operated before. In the immediately post privatisation timetable I think it was 3 trains per day, it then increased to roughly two-hourly under VXC in I think the 1998 timetable change (the same one that increased frequencies on a number of Northern routes and stopped running Windermeres via Wigan).

 

[pemma]

frequent service has helped to grow patronage compared to the infrequent trains that were operated by Virgin Crosscountry.

Don't forget that other services have been cutback since Virgin XC. There is no longer a 2 hourly Manchester Airport-Barrow service interworked with a 2 hourly Manchester Airport-Windermere service. If you want to go to Windermere now from south of Preston now a route planner will tell you to get the Manchester Airport-Scotland service as far as Oxenholme.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget that other services have been cutback since Virgin XC. There is no longer a 2 hourly Manchester Airport-Barrow service interworked with a 2 hourly Manchester Airport-Windermere service. If you want to go to Windermere now from south of Preston now a route planner will tell you to get the Manchester Airport-Scotland service as far as Oxenholme.

As a regular traveller to Ulverston I tend to notice that the Lancaster-Preston part of the service (since it didn't continue to Manchester) has very low use - people tend to change at Lancaster for Manchester. I do sometimes wonder if curtailing the Barrow service to a Lancaster-Barrow service (with some trains continuing round the Coast) on a perfect hourly clockface pattern would make more sense if they can't reinstate through running to Manchester. Then the 185s so released could be used to increase other services.

Potentially the same with Windermere - it's through running to Manchester, not Preston, that's really useful. Running to Preston then stopping (and still requiring a change to Manchester) seems wasteful of rolling stock.

 

[Haydn1971]

Sort of linked... Anyone know how long the new platforms at Oxford Road and Piccadilly will be ?

I'm assuming the key stations north of Wigan would be 265m ish, 11 car 390 compatible.

Also, how long are Manchester Airport's platforms ?

 

[D6975]

Don't know the exact length, but there's not much room to spare when a 8 car 350 is in the platform.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Unsurprisingly both routes have quieter and busier services. I've been on 4 car 350s on the southern part of the WCML where all the passengers could easily fit in to 2 carriages and not even occupy all the seats in that half of the train. Similarly I've seen 8 car 350s at Piccadilly platform 14 where you could close off 3 carriages and everyone would still have a seat. I've also seen 6 car 185s arrive at Preston from Scotland where there are more passengers than seats. I've never seen an overcrowded 8 car 350 on any route, although I'm not doubting it happens on both TPE and LM.
Unless you have average loading numbers for all services and formations for those services it's impossible to compare which is busier.

Manchester-Scotland routes (probably all England-Scotland routes) are very peaky in a way that regular commuter trains aren't.
Weekends and holiday times there are huge numbers of passengers which aren't there mid-week or out of season.
Holiday dates vary north and south of the border too, so the flows can be unbalanced.
Whatever standard daily capacity TPE provided it would be too much half the week and too little the other half.
Most English routes these days are treated as daily commuter routes, eg Manchester/Liverpool/Preston/Chester-London, but that doesn't work for Scotland (or most of Wales, or Cumbria).
You get real trouble when the long distance and commuter peaks coincide.

On a related topic, for some reason the WCML in Scotland has been repeatedly closed at weekends lately.
I've no idea what they are doing north of Carstairs which is causing so much disruption just when folk like to travel.
VT turns round at Carlisle (if they get that far), TPE Glasgows at Lockerbie, while TPE Edinburghs get through.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Are they faster though?

The 350s out accelerate most other trains and the 225s are known for being slow to accelerate being loco hauled and the 91s being geared for 140MPH.

Unless there was a long period of high speed (125) running, then the 350s would be quicker.

Catering on trains is becoming more about at seat trolley services instead of the traditional buffet car (mores the pity IMO). Most catering is farmed out to private companies. So I don't see TPE making extra money on that. What is needed is more capacity, and TBH shortened 225s won't offer that.

The only thing that would really boost TPE would be 5- or 6-car Pendolinos, or other tilting 125mph stock. This won't happen, though.

 

[pemma]

Weekends and holiday times there are huge numbers of passengers which aren't there mid-week or out of season.
Holiday dates vary north and south of the border too, so the flows can be unbalanced.

Indeed which is why when TPE subleased a couple of 350/3s for the Commonwealth Games, they ensured the sublease was long enough to cover the Edinburgh Festival as well - a yearly event which can more than double passenger numbers on some services.

Whatever standard daily capacity TPE provided it would be too much half the week and too little the other half.

Which was why TPE decided to rob North TPE of extra capacity on Fridays and Saturdays to allow a 6 car 185 formation to operate on Scottish services under the wires, which in turn allowed an additional 8 car 350 formation on another diagram. I'm not sure if that still happens following the release of 5 x 170s to Chiltern.

Most English routes these days are treated as daily commuter routes, eg Manchester/Liverpool/Preston/Chester-London, but that doesn't work for Scotland (or most of Wales, or Cumbria).
You get real trouble when the long distance and commuter peaks coincide.

Well with the Scottish services being diverted via Wigan and the 17:00 service from the Airport running Manchester-Preston non-stop there's less of that now.

 

[sprinterguy]

The only thing that would really boost TPE would be 5- or 6-car Pendolinos, or other tilting 125mph stock. This won't happen, though.

6-car Pendolinos would be ideal for the route, in my opinion. With one first class carriage (smaller kitchen to allow more seating the driving vehicle, as, let's face it, the current catering offering is a trolley so anything would be an upgrade!) you would have the same standard class capacity as a 9-car Pendolino (before the recent change that has seen coach G declassified).

I know that it is voiced frequently on this forum, but Manchester to Scotland would sit far better with the West Coast franchise than with TPE if the stock was available for it. It seems a natural bedfellow to the Birmingham - Scotland service. I'm quite happy with 185s on the "proper" Transpennine network and the North West express services, but these trains, and the similar 350s, don't seem to be properly suited to the Manchester to Scotland service compared to the Voyagers and Pendolinos that also ply most of the same route.

Moving further into the realms of fantasy, if the service must stay with TPE then I would like to see a common fleet of five carriage "444-alike" AC EMUs being used across the Transpennine network following electrification, though I don't expect it to happen. Far more likely to see four car units of the Desiro Verve, Hitachi AT200 or something similar, which are admittedly better suited to the commuter flows through the Transpennine core.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

6-car Pendolinos would be ideal for the route, in my opinion. With one first class carriage (smaller kitchen to allow more seating the driving vehicle, as, let's face it, the current catering offering is a trolley so anything would be an upgrade!) you would have the same standard class capacity as a 9-car Pendolino (before the recent change that has seen coach G declassified).

I know that it is voiced frequently on this forum, but Manchester to Scotland would sit far better with the West Coast franchise than with TPE if the stock was available for it. It seems a natural bedfellow to the Birmingham - Scotland service. I'm quite happy with 185s on the "proper" Transpennine network and the North West express services, but these trains, and the similar 350s, don't seem to be properly suited to the Manchester to Scotland service compared to the Voyagers and Pendolinos that also ply most of the same route.

Virgin and First never fully explained their 6-car Pendolino plans in 2012, which were to cover the then Voyager routes.
They were supposed to be quick-coupling for diesel haulage off the wires and presumably to each other, making 12-car sets.
That opens the possibility of joining/splitting at various points, eg Birmingham/Manchester at Preston (much like IEPs in fact).
Assuming WCML stations can handle 12-car Pendolinos, an efficient service could be planned around this capability.
Keeping the Manchester/Birmingham services separate as now means you can't get that economy of scale, so you end up with 4-car TPE services.

Anyway, transfer to ICWC is off the agenda because it would destroy the TPE network, and the DfT wants to retain it.
They seem keen to expand it up the ECML too.

 

[pemma]

Virgin and First never fully explained their 6-car Pendolino plans in 2012, which were to cover the current Voyager routes.

First never explained it because they weren't proposing it.

First proposed buying new EMUs from CAF for Birmingham-Scotland and keeping the Voyagers released for additional services (like Blackpool) and strengthening North Wales services.

Virgin proposed new short Pendolinos and DEMUs locos, which they claimed would be quicker to add and remove than older locos. They also proposed releasing all the Voyagers.

One observation Modern Railways made was the CAF EMUs would likely have been non-tilting trains limited to 110mph.

Of course Virgin launched a legal bid saying First had proposed unrealistic levels of growth and their numbers didn't add up.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Virgin and First never fully explained their 6-car Pendolino plans in 2012, which were to cover the then Voyager routes.
They were supposed to be quick-coupling for diesel haulage off the wires and presumably to each other, making 12-car sets.
That opens the possibility of joining/splitting at various points, eg Birmingham/Manchester at Preston (much like IEPs in fact).
Assuming WCML stations can handle 12-car Pendolinos, an efficient service could be planned around this capability.
Keeping the Manchester/Birmingham services separate as now means you can't get that economy of scale, so you end up with 4-car TPE services.

Anyway, transfer to ICWC is off the agenda because it would destroy the TPE network, and the DfT wants to retain it.
They seem keen to expand it up the ECML too.

I meant as part of TPE. The person running the route is irrelevant, really, so long as the route is actually covered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

6-car Pendolinos would be ideal for the route, in my opinion.

I'd say short-sighted. Go 8-car now and there's room for the future.

 

[Senex]

Moving further into the realms of fantasy, if the service must stay with TPE then I would like to see a common fleet of five carriage "444-alike" AC EMUs being used across the Transpennine network following electrification, though I don't expect it to happen. Far more likely to see four car units of the Desiro Verve, Hitachi AT200 or something similar, which are admittedly better suited to the commuter flows through the Transpennine core.

I don't think the Voyager mistake should be made again -- even the 5-car Voyagers have never been adequate for the XC routes they serve. But there is absolutely no reason why a 444-look-alike should not be a 6-car unit. However, would a 110 maximum be enough to mix in with an even busier ECML north of York and would lack of tilt and only 110 be a problem north of Preston?

I think the reality could well be that London will try and palm off TPE with 4-car units of the types you mention, which would be utterly inadequate for the Scotland service both in quality and in performance terms, and which on the TPE Leeds-Manchester core would represent a sacrifice of the interests of the longer-distance passengers to the convenience of the commuters who shouldn't be on the long-distance trains anyway (in a properly-arranged set-up). But then D.fT just like the newspapers seems to be unaware that there are any sorts of railway passengers other than commuters .....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the reality could well be that London will try and palm off TPE with 4-car units of the types you mention, which would be utterly inadequate for the Scotland service both in quality and in performance terms, and which on the TPE Leeds-Manchester core would represent a sacrifice of the interests of the longer-distance passengers to the convenience of the commuters who shouldn't be on the long-distance trains anyway (in a properly-arranged set-up). But then D.fT just like the newspapers seems to be unaware that there are any sorts of railway passengers other than commuters .....

Interested in your view on quality given that a 350/4 and a 444 have identical seating. Is it purely door layout?

 

[pemma]

I'd say short-sighted. Go 8-car now and there's room for the future.

Agreed. A 6 car Pendolino would give you around 335 seats assuming only one driving car is used for FC and no shop, which would give you around 50% more seats than a 4 car 350. Given people are saying 8 car 350s are overcrowded on some services, 335 seats would be too few for the busy services unless you double up services.

 

[Senex]

Interested in your view on quality given that a 350/4 and a 444 have identical seating. Is it purely door layout?

That, and the shorter bodies. With the 20-metre body you lose space that could be used either for more seats or for decent leg-room -- people have noted many times how very few extra seats a 4-car 350 has more than a 3-car 185. With the doors, the 1/3 2/3 layout is ideal for trains stopping every few minutes at very busy stations, but for long-distance trains it sacrifices space that can be better used for other purposes. And no-one seems to have found a decent way of providing first class in a 1/3 2/3 vehicle where a whole vehicle cannot be made first. The original 170s used a claustrophobic little end compartment and 2+2 seating. Or there has been a middle compartment in the middle of the train, with the consequent flow of passengers through it all through the journey. Or there is the 185 arrangement for the worst of all possible worlds, with first placed between standard on one side and the utility space and a lavatory on the other, leading to a constant tramping through of passengers of passengers from standard looking for more space (in a crowded train) or heading for the lavatory. You know the DB Silberlinge which were designed for local traffic and only appeared on longer-distance work at weekends and when extras were required. You'll also remember the DR "lange Halberstädter" which were designed and built for long-distance work but all vanished from such services pretty quickly after re-unification.

I think a real problem with the Manchester-Scotland service is that the stock needed to mix in on the WCML and take advantage of the permitted speeds etc of that line is quite different from the stock needed for TPE (since no-one is so far proposing the deployment of tilting stock on Manchester-Leeds!). As I think you have said -- and I totally agree -- Manchester-Scotland would be much better off in the West Coast franchise, dealt with as part of the whole West Cast package (after all, getting on to 90% of the journey is on the WCML). TPE needs defining more clearly. I can see the case for 1/3 2/3 if it is to stay considered as a commuter operation with the interests of the long-distance passengers sacrificed to the Huddersfield-Leeds commuters. But if it is to be an InterCity or even an InterRegio operation, then it needs the comfort of long-distance stock and the power and speed to deliver the best possible timings. Apart from the Manchester-Leeds section there is no case for tilt between Liverpool and Newcastle, but there is a case for 125mph capability for running north of York on an ever-busier ECML.

If you really need two different fleets for the West Coast Main Line part of the operations and the TransPennine/East Coast part of the operation, and if the two parts don't overlap at all in traffic terms, what case is there really for sticking them into the same franchise?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you really need two different fleets for the West Coast Main Line part of the operations and the TransPennine/East Coast part of the operation, and if the two parts don't overlap at all in traffic terms, what case is there really for sticking them into the same franchise?

TBH I don't see a reason TPE should even exist. The Scottish services should go to West Coast or CrossCountry with appropriate additional rolling stock, and the rest become part of Northern, in my view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

no-one seems to have found a decent way of providing first class in a 1/3 2/3 vehicle where a whole vehicle cannot be made first.

I don't agree. The Class 321 way of doing it, using half an end vehicle including a dedicated door thus giving two, small, private-feeling compartments, seemed sensible enough.

 

[Camden]

I do disagree, we need genuine competition for passengers benefit wherever we can get it.

Also, I think there is a strong case for having a differentiation between "local" services, "regional" services, and "national" services. It dictates the core purpose and function of these. This is I think something that other countries do well, and we don't.

 

[Senex]

TBH I don't see a reason TPE should even exist. The Scottish services should go to West Coast or CrossCountry with appropriate additional rolling stock, and the rest become part of Northern, in my view.

I think the Scottish services should go into West Coast, not XC unless the Birmingham ones too go back into XC -- much more sensible to have all the WCML stuff in one operation. But I don't agree with you on Trans-Pennine proper, the Liverpool/Manchester- York and beyond stuff. That should be XC every bit as much as Nottingham to Cardiff or Birmingham to Stanstead are XC. I see no difference of kind between Liverpool-Newcastle and Reading to Newcastle. Leave Northern to run its low-quality local services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, I think there is a strong case for having a differentiation between "local" services, "regional" services, and "national" services. It dictates the core purpose and function of these. This is I think something that other countries do well, and we don't.

You can say that in spades! The way in which we mix these up means that except on a limited number of long-distance routes out of London no-one gets a really decent service in this country. Long-distance passengers don't get the comfort, commuters don't get the frequency or the capacity, and the inter-regional just gets lost in the middle.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Leave Northern to run its low-quality local services.

DfT clearly doesn't want that to happen because it has specified high-quality stock for the transferred TPE services.
Also all the other Northern services are to be upgraded.
Why should (eg) Bradford-Leeds, or Liverpool-Preston be "low quality services" just because they don't fit into an arbitrary "XC" bracket?
DfT wants two complementary "high quality" franchises serving different markets in the north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do disagree, we need genuine competition for passengers benefit wherever we can get it.

Personally I think the railway (together with local/regional buses) would be better off as one unit competing with the car, air, and long distance road coach, and not having petty spats with each other. I would very much like to see a joint tariff system on the German/Swiss model to that end.

Also, I think there is a strong case for having a differentiation between "local" services, "regional" services, and "national" services. It dictates the core purpose and function of these. This is I think something that other countries do well, and we don't.

The problem with this is that the UK operation is very high frequency and there simply isn't, other than on 4-track lines like the south WCML, the capacity to differentiate. In Germany, local services operate typically on a 2 hourly base - that would be unthinkable here except in very rural locations - and most IC/ICE is hourly at best. Three trains an hour from London to Manchester/Brum would be unthinkable in Germany. And France's non-TGV services are best described as "basic".