Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

[Haydn1971]

Extensions for 8 x what, 6 x what and 3 x what are all left unclear

 

[pemma]

Extensions for 8 x what, 6 x what and 3 x what are all left unclear

Indeed. Network Rail drew up North TPE plans based on something equivalent to 333s running semi-fasts and something equivalent to 380s running express services but there's been suggestions that the plan is only to allow 8 x 20m on the Ordsall Chord.

3 car DMUs for the Penistone line would have to be 23/24m carriages unless they get the new DMUs (which may or may not be 20m) or the 150s get reformed in to 3 car formations.

 

[Haydn1971]

Would be interesting to know if anyone in Network Rail has a record of what fits each platform across the country in terms of multiple and loco-hauled. I suspect it's more a when required go figure it out ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

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...

Yes, that would be nice. However, if the Manchester-Scotland Pendolinos were built to be the maximum length of the platforms along the route, then it would transfer the micro-fleet of 8 car sets from TPE to VTWC. I don't really know if it would make anything particularly easier, to be honest. I do seem to recall a statement from the DfT that TransPennine Express should be seen as the main InterCity operator for the north of England, so in that case it wouldn't be that silly to continue running the Manchester-Scotland services.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would be interesting to know if anyone in Network Rail has a record of what fits each platform across the country in terms of multiple and loco-hauled. I suspect it's more a when required go figure it out ?

In terms of gauge clearance, or train length? As both usable platform length and gauge clearance by class are detailed in the sectional appendix, with platform specific restrictions given by class at some major stations where required.

 

[Haydn1971]

As both usable platform length and gauge clearance by class are detailed in the sectional appendix, with platform specific restrictions given by class at some major stations where required.

Ah, that's useful - I'll have a nosy Cheers

 

[jimm]

Yes, that would be nice. However, if the Manchester-Scotland Pendolinos were built to be the maximum length of the platforms along the route, then it would transfer the micro-fleet of 8 car sets from TPE to VTWC. I don't really know if it would make anything particularly easier, to be honest. I do seem to recall a statement from the DfT that TransPennine Express should be seen as the main InterCity operator for the north of England, so in that case it wouldn't be that silly to continue running the Manchester-Scotland services.

Any more Pendolino-type trains will be micro-fleets, whoever operates them, as they will have to be based on the latest generation of Pendolinos and the IEP/AT300 orders have already cornered most of the likely market for UK-gauge intercity-type rolling stock over the next few years.

But if you are going to buy some sort of new generation Pendolino for Manchester/Liverpool-Scotland, then it surely makes far more sense for them to be placed with an operator with a similar train fleet - and which already operates the core service on most of the route between the North West and Scotland and thus could benefit from linking with its other services - rather than burdening TPE with managing something that bears precious little resemblance to any other type of train ever likely to be operated on its routes. The current 350 fleet may appear to fall into the micro-fleet category but they were acquired as a short-term stop-gap to free up 185s and cover the Scottish service until the new TPE electric fleet arrived at the end of the decade...

Whatever DfT may like to think sitting miles away in London, TPE is a very long way from being a classic InterCity-type operation, a situation that is not going to change given regional travel patterns across the North of England.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or, given that very little time would be lost, could a subfleet of IEP be built for the non-Scottish London-Brum services, freeing up "proper" Pendolinos to perhaps run a Euston-Manchester service per hour through to Scotland?

SDO could presumably be used for short platforms.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The following has appeared on the DfT website this morning http://maps.dft.gov.uk/northern-powerhouse/index.html

I checked that statement, thinking it was new, but it just repeats what is in the CP5 plan (Yorkshire programme).
However, all the dates were TBC even in the March update, before the "pauses", so timing is anybody's guess now.
I wouldn't regard anything regarding the TP route as settled.

 

[class26]

Or, given that very little time would be lost, could a subfleet of IEP be built for the non-Scottish London-Brum services, freeing up "proper" Pendolinos to perhaps run a Euston-Manchester service per hour through to Scotland?

SDO could presumably be used for short platforms.

If not titling (and they wouldn`t be) they would play havoc south of Rugby with the timetable planning as would be limited to 110 mph

 

[hibtastic]

Yes, that would be nice. However, if the Manchester-Scotland Pendolinos were built to be the maximum length of the platforms along the route, then it would transfer the micro-fleet of 8 car sets from TPE to VTWC. I don't really know if it would make anything particularly easier, to be honest. I do seem to recall a statement from the DfT that TransPennine Express should be seen as the main InterCity operator for the north of England, so in that case it wouldn't be that silly to continue running the Manchester-Scotland services.

Pendolinos regularly hang off the platform at Haymarket so we could have 9 coach sets for TPE with doors locked out of use at certain platforms.

Incidentally, and very selfishly, I use TPE's Scottish services regularly which go nowhere near the Pennines therefore I think they should change the name of the company; but to what? Northern Express?

 

[pemma]

Incidentally, and very selfishly, I use TPE's Scottish services regularly which go nowhere near the Pennines therefore I think they should change the name of the company; but to what? Northern Express?

As the shortlisted bidders are:

• First Trans Pennine Express Limited
• Keolis Go-Ahead Limited
• Stagecoach Trans Pennine Express Trains Limited

I think there's a high chance the name the next operator uses on their trains include Trans Pennine. No idea what name Keolis would put on the trains though.

 

[adrock1976]

in regards to the Manchester - Scotland services, this would be better with mini Pendolini composed of an odd number of coaches. The driving cars and the centre trailer coach could be fitted with underfloor engines that could be easily removed in the future as electrification progresses.

This would enable the present XC Manchester Piccadilly - Bristol TM service to be extended northwards to Glasgow and Edinburgh, calling at Bolton Trinity Street, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme: The Lake District, Penrith, Carlisle Citadel, Lockerbie, then either Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley, or Motherwell and Glasgow Central. This would restore direct Intercity services from Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, and Stockport to Bolton TS, Preston, and Scotland, and also points north of Manchester to Cheltenham and Bristol which were lost in the ridiculous carve up of the former Regional Railways Central/Central Trains franchise.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Any more Pendolino-type trains will be micro-fleets, whoever operates them, as they will have to be based on the latest generation of Pendolinos and the IEP/AT300 orders have already cornered most of the likely market for UK-gauge intercity-type rolling stock over the next few years.

But if you are going to buy some sort of new generation Pendolino for Manchester/Liverpool-Scotland, then it surely makes far more sense for them to be placed with an operator with a similar train fleet - and which already operates the core service on most of the route between the North West and Scotland and thus could benefit from linking with its other services - rather than burdening TPE with managing something that bears precious little resemblance to any other type of train ever likely to be operated on its routes. The current 350 fleet may appear to fall into the micro-fleet category but they were acquired as a short-term stop-gap to free up 185s and cover the Scottish service until the new TPE electric fleet arrived at the end of the decade...

If Alstom have agreed to build only four new trains, I would expect the updated design to be quite similar to the existing one. My understanding is that the biggest change in the new standards is to do with the crashworthiness of the driving cab, which is something which could plausibly be changed without affecting the design of the rest of the train.

From what I can see, the Manchester-Scotland operation is quite separate from the TransPennine North and South services. TP Scotland runs on 125mph tracks almost all the way with EPS speeds available for tilting trains, is entirely electrified and 200m platforms are available at every station. TP North and South are going to remain unelectrified throughout the next franchise period, average speed is lower and the extent of track shared with 125mph services is less for TP North and none for TP South. Given that the trains would have all the maintenance, rescue and stabling facilities already available, and it would be efficient to diagram and train crew to work on these services only, it really doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem to have the TransPennine bidder run this service with new Pendolinos.

I don't see it being particularly practical to use AT300s on Manchester-Scotland, even if the TP North long-distance service were to be run with them. Maintenance and stabling for such a fleet could be shared with the main East Coast IEP fleet in Edinburgh, Newcastle and Doncaster, which wouldn't be a problem as all TP North services go east of the Pennines. Unless Hitachi want to build a very small maintenance base on the west coast, any TP Scotland AT300s would need to be bi-mode in order to get over the Pennines, even though there would be no real need for diesel trains on the west coast at all given the route is already electrified and it's only once in a blue moon that the operator would ever think to divert over the S&C or the G&SW line.

Whatever DfT may like to think sitting miles away in London, TPE is a very long way from being a classic InterCity-type operation, a situation that is not going to change given regional travel patterns across the North of England.

Pendolinos regularly hang off the platform at Haymarket so we could have 9 coach sets for TPE with doors locked out of use at certain platforms.

Incidentally, and very selfishly, I use TPE's Scottish services regularly which go nowhere near the Pennines therefore I think they should change the name of the company; but to what? Northern Express?

If the minimum standard of Northern franchise rolling stock is going to considerably increase, I can see there being some merit in having other classifications of services. Liverpool-Newcastle/Edinburgh and Manchester-Scotland both clearly count as 'InterCity' given that they are long and can run at the same speeds as London expresses, but the line between the remaining services and some of the ones Northern is expected to provide aren't as clear. What difference is there between a Northern 'regional express' service and a Class 185-run TransPennine one, given the similarity in speeds, loadings and journey lengths between the two. If Northern has another classification below it - say 'Northern Local' - which would run the stopping services on most routes, I think you would have a better way of describing what qualities of service there are available between different places in the North.

 

[pemma]

I checked that statement, thinking it was new, but it just repeats what is in the CP5 plan (Yorkshire programme).
However, all the dates were TBC even in the March update, before the "pauses", so timing is anybody's guess now.
I wouldn't regard anything regarding the TP route as settled.

Shadow Rail Minister Lilian Greenwood has said the following about the press release:

“This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors ‎from a Government that has broken its promises to the north time and time again.

"For all their talk of a ‘Northern Powerhouse’, under the Conservatives fares in the north have been hiked by up to 162 per cent, modern trains have been transferred to the south and pre-election pledges to electrify key lines have been cynically dropped.

"Instead of recycling old press releases, the Government should honour its commitments and get on with delivering electrification of the north TransPennine route and the Midland Main Line."

 

[jimm]

If Alstom have agreed to build only four new trains, I would expect the updated design to be quite similar to the existing one. My understanding is that the biggest change in the new standards is to do with the crashworthiness of the driving cab, which is something which could plausibly be changed without affecting the design of the rest of the train.

The Pendolinos now being delivered on the continent are a whole new design from the rails up, compared with what has gone before, so any UK-gauge variant is going to differ in many respects from Virgin's fleet, not just a bit of a tweak of the bodyshell.

How you get from:

From what I can see, the Manchester-Scotland operation is quite separate from the TransPennine North and South services.

to concluding that

it really doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem to have the TransPennine bidder run this service with new Pendolinos.

beats me. To my mind it seems utterly illogical not to hand it to the West Coast operator given that disconnection of the Scottish services from the core purpose of the TPE franchise.

If the minimum standard of Northern franchise rolling stock is going to considerably increase, I can see there being some merit in having other classifications of services. Liverpool-Newcastle/Edinburgh and Manchester-Scotland both clearly count as 'InterCity' given that they are long and can run at the same speeds as London expresses, but the line between the remaining services and some of the ones Northern is expected to provide aren't as clear. What difference is there between a Northern 'regional express' service and a Class 185-run TransPennine one, given the similarity in speeds, loadings and journey lengths between the two. If Northern has another classification below it - say 'Northern Local' - which would run the stopping services on most routes, I think you would have a better way of describing what qualities of service there are available between different places in the North.

You can call anything you like an intercity service - witness XC, where a great deal of the traffic is in reality short-distance/commuting - and the way the TPE trains are used between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester in particular looks nothing like an intercity-type operation. As 61653 HTAFC pointed out in back in post 39, on page 3,

People often seem to overestimate the difference between this service - he was referring to the Liverpool-Newcastles - my italics - 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-

Passengers couldn't give a monkey's if it's an 'intercity' or not and trying to differentiate one bit of the core TPE service from the rest by branding/using end-door stock seems a pointless distraction from the need to maximise carrying capacity and ensure punctual, reliable operating - which end-door stock would do nothing to achieve.

 

[modernrail]

I have always thought it a bit silly that TP ended up with the Scotland services rather than Virgin, especially as the slower TP trains end up on long two track sections north of Wigan - doesn't this eat up capacity?

How long are the platforms at Manchester Airport? Can they take an 8 or 9 car Pendolino?

Also, would a switch to Pendolino and incorporation into the Virgin franchise offer any more journey options/operational flexibility for the WCML? For instance, could you have Glasgow to London services via Manchester, giving Bolton a direct London link? Could you have Glasgow to Birmingham services via Manchester, providing extra capacity on a usually heavily overcrowded XC route?

 

[pemma]

I have always thought it a bit silly that TP ended up with the Scotland services rather than Virgin, especially as the slower TP trains end up on long two track sections north of Wigan - doesn't this eat up capacity?

Really the reason for TPE having Scottish services is because the Voyagers which previously operated the service were nabbed to indirectly enhance the number of Virgin services out of Euston. TPE ran regular Manchester Airport to Windermere services using 185s and those were originally diverted to Scotland to compensate for the loss of the Voyager services.

If DfT had been willing to allow an order for more Voyagers to be placed, there wouldn't have been any need to move the route to TPE.

 

[modernrail]

Also, how many 3 car 185's are used to provide the Liverpool - Newcastle services? I am just trying to work out how many would be released to strengthen other services if that service moved to something else, whatever that might be.

Could bi-modes be maintained at Newton Aycliffe?

 

[ainsworth74]

Could bi-modes be maintained at Newton Aycliffe?

It's a production facility not a maintenance depot. Doncaster I believe would be the nearest maintenance facility to TPE's routes.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Pendolinos now being delivered on the continent are a whole new design from the rails up, compared with what has gone before, so any UK-gauge variant is going to differ in many respects from Virgin's fleet, not just a bit of a tweak of the bodyshell.

However, they could redesign the UIC version and have many more guaranteed orders for it. They will not have done the same amount of redesigning work for a much smaller market and then commit to build a grand total of four new trains based on that design. The 'new' UK Pendolino would be to the existing design what the Class 222 is to the 220/221 design, basically.

How you get from:

to concluding that

beats me. To my mind it seems utterly illogical not to hand it to the West Coast operator given that disconnection of the Scottish services from the core purpose of the TPE franchise.

I was trying to put my argument in terms of why, if The Powers That Be decide that Manchester-Scotland should remain with TransPennine and not be put in the West Coast franchise, that it would still be a reasonable idea for the TransPennine operator to run Pendolinos on the route rather than go for a fully consistent fleet all its routes. I don't know if it would even be possible for Manchester-Scotland to be put in the ICWC franchise given that the tender just went out on having it in the TransPennine one. Clearly, if the decision were made later to change this, for example when the franchises need redesigned to cope with HS2, then it would be more than possible for the ICWC operator to take on the entire Manchester-Scotland operation, trains, crews, timetable and all.

You can call anything you like an intercity service - witness XC, where a great deal of the traffic is in reality short-distance/commuting - and the way the TPE trains are used between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester in particular looks nothing like an intercity-type operation. As 61653 HTAFC pointed out in back in post 39, on page 3,

Passengers couldn't give a monkey's if it's an 'intercity' or not and trying to differentiate one bit of the core TPE service from the rest by branding/using end-door stock seems a pointless distraction from the need to maximise carrying capacity and ensure punctual, reliable operating - which end-door stock would do nothing to achieve.

If there are going to be six TP North paths an hour, the 'InterCity' service would take up at most two of them. It would not be ideal for these two to be filled by trains with end doors, but with the way the electrification project has collapsed temporarily I cannot think of any other way of increasing capacity and reducing journey times on the route other than buying standard bi-mode AT300s and trying to make as many of the other services as long as possible. Had the electrification been complete for 2018 as originally planned, I have no doubts that the bidders would have picked the Desiro Verve or the AT200, both designs being capable of 125mph and having wide suburban-style doorways. If Hitachi or Siemens offer their designs with enough diesel engines underneath to be able to run as quickly over the Pennines as the current 185s can, then I have no doubt that they would prefer to get them as well. In any case, end doors aren't a problem if the train is long enough for people to be able to sit down. The solution I'm proposing would see AT300s used with as many carriages as possible and interiors set up for high capacity, not the piddly little Class 158 sets which used to cause so many problems.

How long are the platforms at Manchester Airport? Can they take an 8 or 9 car Pendolino?

Also, would a switch to Pendolino and incorporation into the Virgin franchise offer any more journey options/operational flexibility for the WCML? For instance, could you have Glasgow to London services via Manchester, giving Bolton a direct London link? Could you have Glasgow to Birmingham services via Manchester, providing extra capacity on a usually heavily overcrowded XC route?

The issue with running services via Manchester is that all the Northern Hub platforms are only ~210m long, and since they're on tight loops any SDO would block the adjacent platform. An 8 car Pendolino would fit fine but a 9 car would probably foul one or both of the junctions, and an 11 car would be completely out of the question. Unless you want 8 car Pendolinos reducing capacity on the WCML south of Manchester, they'll basically have no option but to terminate at Manchester Airport.

 

[pemma]

Also, how many 3 car 185's are used to provide the Liverpool - Newcastle services? I am just trying to work out how many would be released to strengthen other services if that service moved to something else, whatever that might be.

Currently end-to-end the service takes just over 3 hours, so it will be 8 units if they are all stand alone diagrams. I don't think there's any doubling up on that service but there are definitely some services doubled up between York and Manchester Piccadilly.

You might be able to get the proposed half-hourly service with 14 units if the trains were 125mph capable as well as having fast acceleration and not requiring long dwell times.

 

[WatcherZero]

Another reason for the Scottish services going to TPE over Virgin was the overlap with TPE services to Lancs, Virgin would have had to set up a whole new staff infrastructure for the then Bi-hourly trains which wouldnt have much slack for things like staff sickness, wheras TPE services could share resources.

 

[Haydn1971]

It's all well and good people talking about using end door stock on the TPE NorthWest route - yes, it's effectively an express service North of Preston, but South of Preston it's more of a commuter/subregional service - I'd agree that the 185/350's aren't really ideal for the northern bit, but they are perfect South of Preston. Just need them to be longer !

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Also, how many 3 car 185's are used to provide the Liverpool - Newcastle services? I am just trying to work out how many would be released to strengthen other services if that service moved to something else, whatever that might be.

Could bi-modes be maintained at Newton Aycliffe?

I count 7 on NCL-LIV workings at any one time. Some units lay over for an hour at LIV before forming the following XX:10 NCL (which pushes the unit numbers up to 8) whereas others turn straight round and form the xx:22 LIV-SCA while an incoming SCA then forms the NCL service.

Its not great for service recovery tho....

Personally i think an opportunity was missed to dedicate NCL TPE services to 180's which would have freed up 185's for other services. As for stock, there will be an influx of 25k EMU's when new stock is delivered south. Not only the 319's but also many 37x units coming off thameslink will also see 317's, 321's and 365's potentially available once other internal cascades are done. While the suitability of some of these units will be questioned there will no doubt be much gloating from government once the trains are transferred, however from my point of view the current rolling stock rumblings sounds like the cascaded units have already been re-allocated several times over. Still leaving TPE and Northern significantly short!

 

[Haydn1971]

As for stock, there will be an influx of 25k EMU's when new stock is delivered south.

Which are useless without the overhead wires - which is why we are on about diesels and bi-modes for TPE

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's all well and good people talking about using end door stock on the TPE NorthWest route - yes, it's effectively an express service North of Preston, but South of Preston it's more of a commuter/subregional service - I'd agree that the 185/350's aren't really ideal for the northern bit, but they are perfect South of Preston. Just need them to be longer !

Would there be a problem if all the other services are electric and as long as they can be? The lack of DMU orders has meant that services which would normally have been strengthened to cope with demand haven't been able to be, but once you've got wires on the route it's easy to run trains which are as long as the infrastructure allows. If the other trains on the route are high quality and long enough, people won't have to try to crowd onto the Scotland trains.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I guess the motor bogies on the 442s could be replaced with trailer bogies off any Mk3 coaches (HST or LHCS). For traction I guess the 68 as more and more 68s seem to be being built. Hopefully the 442 will last long enough to be worth the minor mods. The 68s are bound to be of use for other things once retired from TP duties.

But I will be amazed if the 442s get used for anything after their 3rd rail duties.

How long before some voyagers(220s/221s) or Meridians(222s) become available ?. Oh maybe the 442s will have a very short bit of use in the meantime.

 

[JamesRowden]

The issue with running services via Manchester is that all the Northern Hub platforms are only ~210m long, and since they're on tight loops any SDO would block the adjacent platform. An 8 car Pendolino would fit fine but a 9 car would probably foul one or both of the junctions, and an 11 car would be completely out of the question. Unless you want 8 car Pendolinos reducing capacity on the WCML south of Manchester, they'll basically have no option but to terminate at Manchester Airport.

Perhaps merging the:

• Proposed Basingstoke to Manchester via Oxford and Milton Keynes
• and Manchester to Scotland

services would be beneficial since they could both benefit from tiliting stock, both routes should be electrified throughout, it would create new journey opportunities, and the loadings and type of passengers on each may be similar.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To my mind it seems utterly illogical not to hand it to the West Coast operator given that disconnection of the Scottish services from the core purpose of the TPE franchise.

One must always remember that this particular part of the current TPE franchise was not part of the original franchise agreement and when discussing such a matter, it is only fair to look to the events that led up to this addition of the TPE franchise and which organisation was the prime mover in that event happening.

If blame is held to be a needed entity in this matter, then let that blame fall squarely upon the shoulders of the organisation who deemed this action to be correct.