Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

[NotATrainspott]

One of the advantages of a Class 800 order is that they would also happily run on whatever new line or parts thereof that may be built in the near future. There won't be any >230km/h running on 'HS3' services until there is a captive line to Newcastle, and so long as 'HS3' services still call at UK-gauge platforms for a while a completely standard fleet of AT300s would work just fine. The DfT could even spin the new fleet of trains as being the first part of 'HS3' to be delivered.

 

[Aictos]

Never a truer word said, I nearly choked when a two car 170 pulled into Sheffield the other afternoon to a huge sigh from dozens of waiting passengers - it chugged out with people standing

Case in point the interworked diagrams that XC have for their Class 170s fleet which have 3 cars and 2 cars Class 170 work a Stansted to Birmingham then a Birmingham to Leicester local so anything could turn up.

Longer trains are needed for XC to use on these routes but that is going slightly off topic.

I just hope that rather then go with the Operation Princess formula of short trains but at a regular frequency which has been a victim of it's own success, the bidders choose to go with longer trains then the Class 185s hence my reference to 5 or 6 car MUs which can be run in pairs on the busiest routes but on a regular clockface timetable if the infrastructure supports it.

You could use the same thesis for local stopping services, some services which are 2 car operated hopefully might have some operated as 4 cars - bottom line is we as a country cannot afford to make the same mistakes with our train service as we grossly misjudged the result that Operation Princess brought.

 

[Bevan Price]

Surely if anything is going to be hauling Mk4s around on TPE it'll be 88s? Can run on electrics where available and has a diesel for the bits where there aren't yet wires.

That being said I do share your concerns with end doors on TPE North!

End doors might just be OK for something like the Liverpool - Newcastle service, which have less frequent stops than some of the other services, and do not call where there are "short" platforms.

 

[D365]

My point exactly, 91's could only service Manchester Airport to Scotland - freeing up 350's that are useless on the rest of the TPE network

I thought the issue with this was fairly well stated... Acceleration!

Aside from reducing the length of a Mk4 rake, I'm not sure swapping to a Class 90 or Class 88 locomotive (which are better set up for acceleration to 110/100mph) will do enough.

 

[Haydn1971]

Surely if anything is going to be hauling Mk4s around on TPE it'll be 88s? Can run on electrics where available and has a diesel for the bits where there aren't yet wires.

I'm not so sure that a single 950bhp Diesel engine will provide enough go-go juice
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought the issue with this was fairly well stated... Acceleration!

That aside, I'm not convinced acceleration is as big a deal as made out - modern railways has something on this a while back.

Regardless - my point is that using any electric loco doesn't fix the big problem of York-Leeds-Manchester - only diesel power can help

 

[MidlandMainlie]

That horse has well and truly bolted - although the pause will review the current situation, it's pretty certain "just" electrifying TPE North through Huddersfield isn't a long term solution. It has to be a new line full stop.



TPE needs 6-8 carriage units across its fleet to manage growth through that period, it also needs some cheap fix solutions for getting more trains per hour down the line. CrossCountry desperately needs extra units, Northern will be culling it's 14x fleet in a few years, the 150-156 fleet perhaps even the 158 fleet will need to be culled before the next franchise in 2025 ish. As I've been saying ever since joining this forum, we need to accept that wires across the network aren't going to happen quickly and start a rolling program of new DMU's, preferably DEMU's that are easy to convert or Bi-Mode lower speed units for the regions and non ML franchises.

I agree a regional Bi-mode type unit would be the the best option for North Transpennine, something capable of 125mph (possibly even 140mph if sections of the ECML North of York are upgraded for higher speeds as part of HS2/3). 185's could then be cascaded onto South Transpennine.

The problem I think lies in fitting a diesel power pack into a carriage with 1/3 and 2/3 doors necessary on the TP Core given the IEP and AT-300's have sloping floors to accomidate the diesel power packs,so in theory could Hatachi design and build a Bi-mode version of the class 395 for Transpennine North services?

 

[BurtonM]

Personally I don't think there's much of a problem with LHCS as long as it's something like a 68 on the front of a rake of refreshed carriages - the loco looks modern so the average passenger sees a big, new train. As for coaches... well, to the typical pax's eye there's not a lot between a Mk3/4 and a Pendo so...

 

[WatcherZero]

Just have the rolling stock doors slightly higher, then you can have even floors. Its not like the North is unused to a multitude of rolling stock with differing floor heights.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

End doors might just be OK for something like the Liverpool - Newcastle service, which have less frequent stops than some of the other services, and do not call where there are "short" platforms.

People often seem to overestimate the difference between this service and the other four on North TPE. As far as the Manchester to Leeds core is concerned, passengers will board the first train they can unless on an advance- the only exceptions will be passengers for Stalybridge or Dewsbury, or those requiring Piccadilly for onward connections. Dewsbury is one station that can't take more than 6x23m and currently the Newcastle services have some additional calls there during peaks and evenings. Huddersfield platform 8 is also 6x23m max, so even if the few Dewsbury calls were removed, that's the maximum length for ANY services through the core.

 

[pemma]

Huddersfield platform 8 is also 6x23m max, so even if the few Dewsbury calls were removed, that's the maximum length for ANY services through the core.

Could some services not be sent to platform 4 at Huddersfield if platform 8 wasn't to be lengthened?

In the early days of First TPE there were occasionally 8 car 158 formations on North TPE when special events were on.

 

[47802]

Suggestions I have seen elsewhere seem to talk about a significant Bi-mode order which would allow the 350's to be cascaded and some 185's cascaded to Northern.

That would presumably mean that all the Scottish Services and all the North TPX fast services go Bi-mode maybe with end doors, probably then leaving the proposed Half Hourly North TPX semi fast service as 185's and the South TPX service as 185's.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

On the route that TPE use their class 350s on could a class 800 or 801 physically get along it, given the longer length of the coaches to house the diesel engines? Would there be any curves that would be too sharp a radius?

 

[pemma]

some 185's cascaded to Northern.

TPE/Northern ITTs indicate Northern will have to loan some 185s from TPE initially to cover some of the services on the routes which transfer.

and all the North TPX fast services go Bi-mode maybe with end doors

TPE ITT seems to indicate Scarborough and Middlesbrough will continue to be served by TPE. Is there enough overhead wiring on Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough/Scarborough to allow bi-mode to operate complete diagrams without running out of diesel?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the route that TPE use their class 350s on could a class 800 or 801 physically get along it, given the longer length of the coaches to house the diesel engines? Would there be any curves that would be too sharp a radius?

If it's helps - apart from the Manchester Airport spur, Pendolinos are cleared for the entire route. Pendolinos can't go to the Airport because they are too long for the platforms.

 

[47802]

TPE/Northern ITTs indicate Northern will have to loan some 185s from TPE initially to cover some of the services on the routes which transfer.

I am aware of that, if enough Bi-modes are ordered it could become permanent.

TPE ITT seems to indicate Scarborough and Middlesbrough will continue to be served by TPE. Is there enough overhead wiring on Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough/Scarborough to allow bi-mode to operate complete diagrams without running out of diesel?.

I would have thought that wouldn't be a problem for something like the extended range AT300's for the South West, assuming of course that it is Hitachi trains that are on the table.

 

[jimm]

Could some services not be sent to platform 4 at Huddersfield if platform 8 wasn't to be lengthened?

In the early days of First TPE there were occasionally 8 car 158 formations on North TPE when special events were on.

You might squeeze another coach on to platform 4 but that's about it and you've also got to accommodate westbound trains. Platform 1 is now shorter than 4 in its current configuration, with the Sheffield bay taking up quite a bit of the former length of platform.

Without a lot of work at stations the best approach is probably going to be to run the maximum possible number of six-car services through the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester section, whether that is fixed formations or 2x3-cars. And preferably with 1/3, 2/3 doors. The 158s could be painfully slow loading and unloading when they worked the line. As were the loco-hauled trains and Transpennine dmus before them.

There is nothing to say that any bi-modes must have the particular type of MTU engine that is being fitted to the 800-series trains. Use a smaller engine and install as many as you can rather than leaving some coaches unpowered, and you may well very be able to combine enough diesel oomph with the same floor level throughout the coaches, which could make a bi-mode Hitachi AT200 an option - it also has a design speed of 125mph on electric power, so would be no slouch where wires were available.

Alstom has also been making noises about re-entering the UK train building market and has proven bi-mode technology in use in France. The question for them would be whether they feel inclined to design a UK-gauge bi-mode given that the engine and a lot of other equipment on the SNCF sets is roof-mounted to take advantage of Continental loading gauge.

 

[Haydn1971]

There is nothing to say that any bi-modes must have the particular type of MTU engine that is being fitted to the 800-series trains. Use a smaller engine and install as many as you can rather than leaving some coaches unpowered, and you may well very be able to combine enough diesel oomph with the same floor level throughout the coaches, which could make a bi-mode Hitachi AT200 an option - it also has a design speed of 125mph on electric power, so would be no slouch where wires were available.

From what I recall, most of TPE North between Leeds and Manchester is limited to 75mph anyways - so sling a smaller package under all six 24m cars, lower the floors, top with AC and bingo. Easy peasy haha

 

[Emblematic]

From what I recall, most of TPE North between Leeds and Manchester is limited to 75mph anyways - so sling a smaller package under all six 24m cars, lower the floors, top with AC and bingo. Easy peasy haha

And you've all forgotten that the transformer for AC has to go somewhere (uses the unpowered cars on the Hitachis,) so you've just reinvented the Voyager, just a slow, low emissions version...

 

[47802]

And you've all forgotten that the transformer for AC has to go somewhere (uses the unpowered cars on the Hitachis,) so you've just reinvented the Voyager, just a slow, low emissions version...

Maybe a 5 car train with 1 unpowered car for the Electrics, voyager size engine around 750bhp that's 3000bhp to shift a 5 car train what more do you need?

 

[Haydn1971]

so you've just reinvented the Voyager, just a slow, low emissions version...

Much improved also - it's got 6 carriages instead of 4/5

Now to fix the toilets !

 

[edwin_m]

20 years is hardly a stop gap - that's how long it would take to build a new line across the Pennines
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



That's not looking likely now - Electrification of TPE North is dead in the water - why spend £100m's on something that brings so small a benefit of an extra train per hour with the restrictions on train length we have now - the HS2 argument will win out

TPE still has more coaches per hour than most of the North West routes that were electrified, and a lot more saving of running under the wires than most of them. So there's probably still a good commercial as case for electrifying it when resources are available and long-term plans have been finalised - and the political fallout from cancelling it having committed not to could be significant too. The stopgap is only from the end of the new franchise until either HS3 is built or the existing route is electrified, and there's plenty of time to order some new trains then if they turn out to be needed then.

I had another look at the TPE ITT.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf

Condition 3 on page 95 seems to override the earlier exclusion of 114x, 15x and 17x and allows TP bidders to offer any rolling stock not committed to another franchise. I think this could include 170s cascaded from Scotrail by HSTs, as long as nobody else has snapped them up in the meantime.

The ITT also requires no increase in existing journey times without a good reason. I doubt that replacing high-performance DMUs with low-powered push-pull sets is a good enough reason... remembering also that acceleration correlates with speed up hills.

So I still think it could be some extra 170s plus maybe a smallish build of bi-modes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

On the route that TPE use their class 350s on could a class 800 or 801 physically get along it, given the longer length of the coaches to house the diesel engines? Would there be any curves that would be too sharp a radius?

The only routes cleared for 26m 80x in the north are those used by VTEC.
NR would have to clear all the TPE-specific routes and they are very curved in places, notably Manchester-Leeds and through Cumbria.
I can't see the WCML people being very keen for another lot of clearance work, although Carlisle-Glasgow/Edinburgh must be being done for VTEC diversions.
Maybe a 23m IEP would suit TPE better, if such a thing is possible.

 

[D365]

Maybe a 23m IEP would suit TPE better, if such a thing is possible.

Hitachi seem quite willing to provide AT300-family trains in different lengths: Class 395 Javelins for example, I don't think many South East routes can take carriages longer than 20m. It would require somewhat of a redesign on their behalf to 'shrink' an IEP/SET down however.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Pendolino driving vehicles are 25m long, while the intermediates are 24m. Since the extra length in the driving vehicle consists of the driving cab beyond the bogie, wouldn't that mean most, if not all, of the clearance works for IEP services would have been done already? The 26m Mk5 profile has been the standard for new build and reconstructions for a while so it can't be too difficult. As said before, Carlisle to Carstairs must be done for the East Coast diversions anyway, so the total amount of extra works that could be needed is going to be reduced again.

If LNWR have got Alstom to agree to build just four new 6-car Pendolino units, requiring the design to be fully upgraded for the modern safety standards, then Alstom clearly think there's a market for more of them. TransPennine Express seems to do fine with having a separate small fleet of quite different trains to run the Scotland-Manchester Airport service, so it looks like they could cope with a similarly-sized fleet of new Pendolinos which would never cross the Pennines. Maintenance and servicing would be easy with the Alstom maintenance centre at Longsight and stabling at Polmadie. Platform lengths on the WCML wouldn't be an issue, and with the rebuild of Oxford Road there would be at least 200m available all the way so a standard 8 car set (like how the 390s were originally delivered to VTWC) would be able to run. The current trains are already pretty busy and demand is just going to increase if 'proper InterCity trains' are used rather than glorified commuter trains. Offer some cheap advance fares and/or market Manchester Airport as another option for Central Belt holidaymakers and I'm sure the extra lease and track access costs of a Pendolino could be paid for.

 

[edwin_m]

Pendolino driving vehicles are 25m long, while the intermediates are 24m. Since the extra length in the driving vehicle consists of the driving cab beyond the bogie, wouldn't that mean most, if not all, of the clearance works for IEP services would have been done already?

Most of the extra length of the Pendolino is in the nose, which is much more tapered than the inner end of an IEP and therefore doesn't have the same amount of end throw. So I don't think somewhere being cleared for Pendolinos says anything about how easy it would be to clear it for IEPs, except that it may be a more modern line which has had more done in the way of general gauge enhancement.

 

[WatcherZero]

The pendolino driving cars do indeed have the same profile as IEP cars.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE can do 85 thru standedge tunnel, and the curvature of the track is not too bad. Potential of increased linespeeds is there with minimal work the only significant curves are at Guide Bridge Junction and west of Manchester Victoria picking up the Eccles route behind Salford Central - they really shoild have slewed the track there before stringing the knitting up, 10mph is ridiculous! North of church fenton 125 is easily attainable for the dash to York, the main issue for the route is the local services also using the route eats up the limited capacity.

 

[jimm]

And you've all forgotten that the transformer for AC has to go somewhere (uses the unpowered cars on the Hitachis,) so you've just reinvented the Voyager, just a slow, low emissions version...

Hadn't forgotten at all. Just thought it would be obvious you would need a transformer somewhere, which was why I said fit as many engines as possible. As 47802 says, 3000hp should be plenty for the job.

And unlike a Voyager it wouldn't have a certain design of toilet, need a tilt body profile, or have Virgin's interior 'designers' let loose on it.

If LNWR have got Alstom to agree to build just four new 6-car Pendolino units, requiring the design to be fully upgraded for the modern safety standards, then Alstom clearly think there's a market for more of them. TransPennine Express seems to do fine with having a separate small fleet of quite different trains to run the Scotland-Manchester Airport service, so it looks like they could cope with a similarly-sized fleet of new Pendolinos which would never cross the Pennines.

Or you just switch the Scottish service to the West Coast franchise, given that the North West electrification schemes are removing the main obstacle that used to exist to integrating the Manchester-Scotland trains with that franchise, allowing the TransPennine franchise to concentrate on, er, running trains across the Pennines...

But what is really needed is to just get on and do the wiring and buy some electric trains anyway, with the lines to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesbrough (plus the CLC route to Liverpool, plus to Chester too if wires arrive there from the Crewe direction) included, rather than dreaming about a new tunnel under the Pennines and 'HS3', which will be years away, even if it ever gets past the pipedream stage.

 

[pemma]

Condition 3 on page 95 seems to override the earlier exclusion of 114x, 15x and 17x and allows TP bidders to offer any rolling stock not committed to another franchise. I think this could include 170s cascaded from Scotrail by HSTs, as long as nobody else has snapped them up in the meantime.

I don't agree. Condition 3 follows on page 95 relates to the below

In addition, Bidders may include existing locomotives and/or coaching stock within
their Bids (apart from those that are to be leased to the Northern franchisee during
the term of the current Northern franchise and for the initial part of the next
Northern franchise), but only if either Condition 1 or Condition 2 or Condition 3
below is met.

so it only relates to loco-hauled options in addition to the multiple unit options for which DfT seem to have reserved the FGW 150/1s and 153s and the Scotrail 156s, 158s and 170s for Northern bidders by preventing TPE bidders taking them on. I also imagine the minimum 120 new vehicles presumes 120 new vehicles if Northern are able to secure all the 15xs and 17xs released.

 

[TrickyHex]

But what is really needed is to just get on and do the wiring and buy some electric trains anyway, with the lines to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesbrough (plus the CLC route to Liverpool, plus to Chester too if wires arrive there from the Crewe direction) included, rather than dreaming about a new tunnel under the Pennines and 'HS3', which will be years away, even if it ever gets past the pipedream stage.

Seconded!

 

[pemma]

Dewsbury is one station that can't take more than 6x23m and currently the Newcastle services have some additional calls there during peaks and evenings. Huddersfield platform 8 is also 6x23m max, so even if the few Dewsbury calls were removed, that's the maximum length for ANY services through the core.

The following has appeared on the DfT website this morning

Works are planned at Huddersfield Station to allow for additional capacity for eight-car trains to operate on cross-Pennine inter-urban services, and four-car trains to/from Leeds and Manchester and three-car trains between Huddersfield and Sheffield.

http://maps.dft.gov.uk/northern-powerhouse/index.html