Transpennine woes and a moan...

[DoubleO]

A six-car set should have been left at Hull, then?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Dec 2022 ==


No-one is suggesting that it shouldn't be maintained.

So how do you suggest major track renewals are carried out adjacent to a TMD without any disruption to access to/from that depot?

 

[VauxhallNova]

55 full cancellations tomorrow

 

[alistairlees]

So how do you suggest major track renewals are carried out adjacent to a TMD without any disruption to access to/from that depot?

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any focus on customers. These are the people for whom the railway exists. Anyway, I put the answer above. Whilst I realise that there are complexities to even (appaently) simple issues (such as providing a 6-car train, rather than a 3-car train, as the first train to go westwards across the Pennines on a bank holiday), I would be surprised if it could absolutely not have been achieved.

 

[LittleAH]

That sounds like really good management; presumably by the DfT.

You can always chuck your hat into the ring. I'm sure train planning would love your can do attitude

 

[DoubleO]

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any focus on customers. These are the people for whom the railway exists. Anyway, I put the answer above. Whilst I realise that there are complexities to even (appaently) simple issues (such as providing a 6-car train, rather than a 3-car train, as the first train to go westwards across the Pennines on a bank holiday), I would be surprised if it could absolutely not have been achieved.

I absolutely do have a focus on customers. But there was an implication that the DfT had consciously, or even deliberately, decided to renew the track outside the Leeman Rd depot just to disrupt customers. Infrastructure maintenance/renewal will impact services, it's unavoidable.

 

[VauxhallNova]

You can always chuck your hat into the ring. I'm sure train planning would love your can do attitude

 

[Andyh82]

It’s been said time and time again that there shouldn’t be 3 car sets at all, as TPE are awash with rolling stock. They should always be formed into 6 car formations

Would the Huddersfield stoppers be able to run as a 6 car with the rear 3 locked out?

 

[GordonT]

55 full cancellations tomorrow

Has Transpennine now descended into complete chaos or is it still just heading in that direction?

 

[_toommm_]

Would the Huddersfield stoppers be able to run as a 6 car with the rear 3 locked out?

It can run as a six-car in service. Piccadilly, Stalybridge, and Huddersfield all take six-cars. Mossley is five-car, with Greenfield, Marsden, and Slaithwaite being four-car (IIRC).

 

[142blue]

....and no alternative Northern Calder Valley services today!

Personally I'd take the coach. National Express still every hour?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2022 ==

Going well at Victoria tonight.

If that isnt asking for trouble I don't know what is be that people being crushed or trampled or the risk of a terrorist attack in such a crowded area

 

[DoubleO]

It can run as a six-car in service. Piccadilly, Stalybridge, and Huddersfield all take six-cars. Mossley is five-car, with Greenfield, Marsden, and Slaithwaite being four-car (IIRC).

True but the Leeds - Huddersfield stopper couldn't realistically run as a 6 car.

 

[Jamesrob637]

True but the Leeds - Huddersfield stopper couldn't realistically run as a 6 car.

Most stations on the Huddersfield to Leeds line see Northern trains anyway so TPE can get away with booked 3-car workings there. Everything else should be booked 5 or 6 with the possible exception of the final train of the day Sunday to Thursday.

 

[sjpowermac]

It can run as a six-car in service. Piccadilly, Stalybridge, and Huddersfield all take six-cars. Mossley is five-car, with Greenfield, Marsden, and Slaithwaite being four-car (IIRC).

Certainly six car trains ran for most of the pandemic, the guard travelling in the rear set and advising passengers at each stop.

In addition, Class 68s plus five Mk5a coaches are diagrammed for the following services that call at Slaithwaite, Marsden, Greenfield, Mossley and Stalybridge:

West bound

1U20 0538 York-Manchester Piccadilly
1U28 0648 Scarborough-Manchester Piccadilly

East bound

1U31 0729 Manchester Piccadilly-Scarborough

 

[DanNCL]

Given the issues with getting units off depot, I can’t help thinking it might be worth TPE’s while doing some clever diagramming so that they can get pairs of 185s in exactly the same place in the maintenance cycle and therefore run the 185s as semi-permanently coupled 6 car sets. The only reason to split them is when one unit requires an exam - getting the place in the maintenance cycle lined up on both units removes that issue. Same system is used on the Tyne & Wear Metro and the same pairs of units often remain coupled for several months at a time.

 

[sjpowermac]

TPE today: the first train from Leeds to Manchester (Victoria) at 11.00 was a 3-car 185 from Hull (dep 10.00) to Liverpool Lime Street. The next alternative was 45 minutes later and quite a few later services were cancelled.

I caught this first service at Selby (dep 10.32) and it was already full and standing from there. From Leeds it was carrying at least double the number of passengers (compared to seats) and it was difficult to board. Boarding at Huddersfield and Stalybridge was clearly impossible for some people who were left behind and the loading must have been over 200%. Over three quarters of people got off at Manchester Victoria, where we had arrived 8 minutes late.

I then caught the 12.24 TPE service from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool LS (but only as far as Newton-le-Willows). Although this arrived in the platform at 12.09, it was left idling but locked and not opened for passenger use until about 12.20 - there were about 30 people waiting on the platform.

Finally caught a TfW service from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington Bank Quay. This was about a third full.

In general this journey would have been fine (if stilll crowded and with people standing from Huddersfield to Manchester) if the 10.32 Hull to Liverpool (the first train for 2.5 days) had been a six-car 185.

I expect about 200+ people are not going to try rail travel again anytime soon. And they are going to tell at least the same amount of people about how difficult / poor it all was.

Later trains from Leeds to Manchester really fared even worse though, at least in so far as cancellations went:

11.00 - ran (8 minutes late at Manchester V)
11.45 - ran (2 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.00 - ran (35 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.30- cancelled
12.45 - cancelled
13.30 - ran (expected 70 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.45 - ran (expected 60 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.59 - ran (only 17 minutes late at Manchester V!)

So a 90 minute gap roughly in departures from Leeds to Manchester.

I think there was a points failure between Leeds and York around 11:00, so down to Network Rail rather than TPE.

Regarding running a 3-car train, I think that question has been answered previously.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2022 ==

Given the issues with getting units off depot, I can’t help thinking it might be worth TPE’s while doing some clever diagramming so that they can get pairs of 185s in exactly the same place in the maintenance cycle and therefore run the 185s as semi-permanently coupled 6 car sets. The only reason to split them is when one unit requires an exam - getting the place in the maintenance cycle lined up on both units removes that issue. Same system is used on the Tyne & Wear Metro and the same pairs of units often remain coupled for several months at a time.

I’d suggest to you that, from an engineering perspective, a Tyne & Wear metro train is a much simpler piece of kit than a Class 185.

 

[py_megapixel]

Certainly six car trains ran for most of the pandemic, the guard travelling in the rear set and advising passengers at each stop.

There isn't even any need for that any more as the auto announcements can now handle it (and do so quite elegantly, making announcements in each individual coach telling passengers how far they need to move forward)

 

[sjpowermac]

There isn't even any need for that any more as the auto announcements can now handle it (and do so quite elegantly, making announcements in each individual coach telling passengers how far they need to move forward)

That may well be so, I’ve simply written what I observed on my numerous journeys on the route at the time.

 

[alistairlees]

I think there was a points failure between Leeds and York around 11:00, so down to Network Rail rather than TPE.

Indeed, making for an expecially difficult day for customers.

Regarding running a 3-car train, I think that question has been answered previously.

No, it hasn't.

 

[sjpowermac]

Indeed, making for an expecially difficult day for customers.

No, it hasn't.

You say ‘indeed’ but didn’t mention the points failure in your original post.

Regarding 3 car trains, if you look back through the thread, there are numerous posts on this topic.

Is your question about why your train was a 3 car or are you suggesting that all trains should be 6 cars? I don’t work for TPE, but if you clarify, then I’ll try and suggest an answer.

Anyhow, as I understand it, the track maintenance work that severed access to York Siemens depot was completed earlier this morning.

 

[DanNCL]

I’d suggest to you that, from an engineering perspective, a Tyne & Wear metro train is a much simpler piece of kit than a Class 185.

Metrocars may well be a simpler piecer of kit but the principle is the same. If both units have been put in the same place in the exam cycle, there’s no need to split them unless one develops a fault, so the same pairs of units could remain coupled for a long period. I struggle to see how this wouldn’t work for 185s or indeed any other type of multiple unit.

 

[sjpowermac]

Metrocars may well be a simpler piecer of kit but the principle is the same. If both units have been put in the same place in the exam cycle, there’s no need to split them unless one develops a fault, so the same pairs of units could remain coupled for a long period. I struggle to see how this wouldn’t work for 185s or indeed any other type of multiple unit.

It’s a fantasy to equate the engineering and operational challenges of running an inter-urban diesel unit with a metro car on a self contained network.

As previously mentioned, there was a points failure between Leeds and York that caused service disruption on the morning of 27.12.2022, something TPE couldn’t realistically be expected to plan for.

Regarding the specific problem of 1K14 being a 3 car set on 27.12.2022, I’ve listed below the chain of events that led up to that.

185 137 was paired with 185107 until the morning of 23.12.2022. That morning 1K08 0653 Hull-Liverpool Lime Street was cancelled, which would have left no unit for 1K15 0954 Liverpool Lime Street-Hull.

At this point, 185 137 and 185 107 were split, with 185 137 working 1K13 0854 Liverpool Lime Street-Hull as booked and 185 107 working 1K15 09 54 Liverpool Lime Street-Hull, which would have been cancelled, along with subsequent workings, had the units not been split.

From this point onwards, 185 137 didn’t visit Ardwick prior to working 1K14 from Hull on 27.12.2022.

As previously mentioned on the thread, running empty stock moves is currently unlikely to happen. I think it also highlights how being able to split the Class 185 sets does give great flexibility during service disruption.

21.12.2022
185137
5F48 0511 Ardwick-MCV
1F48 0552 MCV-LIV

185 137 joined with 185 107
1K09 0654 LIV-HUL
Stabled Hull (service disruption on the day due to problems with rostering software).

22.12.2022
185 137 paired with 185 107
1K08 0653 HUL-MCV
1K13 0930 MCV-HUL
5K13 1207 HUL-Botanic Gardens-HUL
1K26 1603 HUL-LIV
1K33 1854 LIV-HUL
Stabled Hull

23.12.2022
185 137 paired with 185 107
1K06 0601 HUL-LIV

185 137 split from 185 107 at LIV

*1K08 0653 HUL-LIV (0933) CANCELLED*

185 107
1K15 0954 LIV-HUL

185 137
1K13 0854 LIV-HUL
5K13 1207 HUL-Botanic Gardens-HUL
1K24 1503 HUL-LIV
1K31 1754 LIV-HUL
Stabled Hull

24.12.2022
185 137
1K10 0755 HUL-LDS
1K11 0927 LDS-HUL
1K18 1203 HUL-LDS
1K19 1327 LDS-HUL
Stabled Hull

25.12.2022 and 26.12.2022 no service

27.12.2022
185 137
1K14 1000 HUL-LIV
1K21 1254 LIV-HUL
185 137 joined with 185 119
1703 HUL-MAN

MCV = Manchester Victoria
LIV = Liverpool Lime Street
HUL = Hull
LDS = Leeds

TPE today: the first train from Leeds to Manchester (Victoria) at 11.00 was a 3-car 185 from Hull (dep 10.00) to Liverpool Lime Street. The next alternative was 45 minutes later and quite a few later services were cancelled.

I caught this first service at Selby (dep 10.32) and it was already full and standing from there. From Leeds it was carrying at least double the number of passengers (compared to seats) and it was difficult to board. Boarding at Huddersfield and Stalybridge was clearly impossible for some people who were left behind and the loading must have been over 200%. Over three quarters of people got off at Manchester Victoria, where we had arrived 8 minutes late.

I then caught the 12.24 TPE service from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool LS (but only as far as Newton-le-Willows). Although this arrived in the platform at 12.09, it was left idling but locked and not opened for passenger use until about 12.20 - there were about 30 people waiting on the platform.

Finally caught a TfW service from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington Bank Quay. This was about a third full.

In general this journey would have been fine (if stilll crowded and with people standing from Huddersfield to Manchester) if the 10.32 Hull to Liverpool (the first train for 2.5 days) had been a six-car 185.

I expect about 200+ people are not going to try rail travel again anytime soon. And they are going to tell at least the same amount of people about how difficult / poor it all was.

Later trains from Leeds to Manchester really fared even worse though, at least in so far as cancellations went:

11.00 - ran (8 minutes late at Manchester V)
11.45 - ran (2 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.00 - ran (35 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.30- cancelled
12.45 - cancelled
13.30 - ran (expected 70 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.45 - ran (expected 60 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.59 - ran (only 17 minutes late at Manchester V!)

So a 90 minute gap roughly in departures from Leeds to Manchester.

I'd probably suggest just cancelling a shedload of trains after running a 3 car first thing, then another 3 car, then some more cancellations.

 

[DanNCL]

It’s a fantasy to equate the engineering and operational challenges of running an inter-urban diesel unit with a metro car on a self contained network.

It’s not fantasy at all, it’s a reasonable concept that can be applied elsewhere. Get two units to the same place in the maintenance cycle, then couple them, and as they’ll both be due exams at the same time the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service. It would largely eliminate the issue of drivers not being able to bring the second unit in from a depot on its own.

As far as self contained goes, Metro isn’t the self contained single depot operation it used to be, it’s now a multi depot operation and all services interact with other non-Metro trains, more so now than Merseyrail which many generally accept as having the same challenges as the main National Rail network. Of course it’s not the same scale as TPE by any means, but to suggest there’s no comparison between the two and nothing that could be adapted from one to suit the other is simply wrong. Different rail networks can often learn from each other even when their operational requirements are very different.

 

[sjpowermac]

It’s not fantasy at all, it’s a reasonable concept that can be applied elsewhere. Get two units to the same place in the maintenance cycle, then couple them, and as they’ll both be due exams at the same time the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service. It would largely eliminate the issue of drivers not being able to bring the second unit in from a depot on its own.

As far as self contained goes, Metro isn’t the self contained single depot operation it used to be, it’s now a multi depot operation and all services interact with other non-Metro trains, more so now than Merseyrail which many generally accept as having the same challenges as the main National Rail network. Of course it’s not the same scale as TPE by any means, but to suggest there’s no comparison between the two and nothing that could be adapted from one to suit the other is simply wrong. Different rail networks can often learn from each other even when their operational requirements are very different.

It is a complete fantasy.
You’ve already admitted as much in your reply where you say:

“the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service”.

I don’t have a complete list of Class 185 unit diagrams or their maintenance cycles, do you?

I’ve given you an example of how it was necessary to split units in order to avoid cancellation of services. The result was a single unit continuing in service for several days. So, even under your proposal, where you allow for splitting, there would still be instances where 3 car sets would run in service for several days.

I think you show a distinct lack of awareness in looking at the operation of a diesel unit on an inter-urban network during a period of industrial action and comparing it with a tram on what, despite your protests, is a self contained network.

Here are a few questions that you might like to consider:

1. How many of the trams don’t end up on a depot each night?

2. Is there current industrial action/a shortage of drivers on the Metro network?

3.How likely is it that one of a pair of trams will develop a fault, compared with one of a pair of diesel units?

4. How likely is it that a pair of trams will require splitting during the day to avoid service disruption?

5. How likely is it that having been split, the trams will spend several days away from a depot?

I’m sure that if you can find answers to those questions, then TPE will be delighted to follow your suggestion. Perhaps if you could specifically reference the incident that I gave with 185 137, that would be even better.

 

[DanNCL]

It is a complete fantasy.
You’ve already admitted as much in your reply where you say:

“the only reason to split them would be if one develops a fault or in an emergency where the alternative would be to cancel a service”.

I don’t have a complete list of Class 185 unit diagrams or their maintenance cycles, do you?

I’ve given you an example of how it was necessary to split units in order to avoid cancellation of services. The result was a single unit continuing in service for several days. So, even under your proposal, where you allow for splitting, there would still be instances where 3 car sets would run in service for several days.

I think you show a distinct lack of awareness in looking at the operation of a diesel unit on an inter-urban network during a period of industrial action and comparing it with a tram on what, despite your protests, is a self contained network.

Here are a few questions that you might like to consider:

1. How many of the trams don’t end up on a depot each night?

2. Is there current industrial action/a shortage of drivers on the Metro network?

3.How likely is it that one of a pair of trams will develop a fault, compared with one of a pair of diesel units?

4. How likely is it that a pair of trams will require splitting during the day to avoid service disruption?

5. How likely is it that having been split, the trams will spend several days away from a depot?

I’m sure that if you can find answers to those questions, then TPE will be delighted to follow your suggestion. Perhaps if you could specifically reference the incident that I gave with 185 137, that would be even better.

And that would be the only reason to split 185s in such a scenario too. Splitting 185107 and 185137 is an example of such a scenario.

On the maintenance point, that’s exactly why you don’t implement such a setup until you’ve got two units in the same place on maintenance cycle, which requires some clever diagramming beforehand. Of course it isn’t going to work if the two units haven’t first gotten to the same place in the maintenance cycle.

1. 20 out of 89 away from Gosforth each night. Yes it’s lower than the percentage of 185s away from Ardwick each night but it’s not an insignificant number away from the home depot either, and some are away multiple nights in a row as with the 185s.

2. No industrial action (yet) but there is a driver shortage, has been one there for many years. Drivers have been leaving faster than they can be recruited, many of them moved to TPE.

3. These metro units have a significantly lower MTIN than 185s so if anything 185s are less likely to require splitting for a fault. Although Metro’s approach is to take both units out of service regardless when one develops a fault (although the ‘good’ unit would quickly find itself back in service as part of another formation) - that’s something I’m not suggesting be carried over to other operators.

4. That’s the big stumbling block, but with enough thought a solution could likely be found to make it work on TPE. It’s something you take and adapt, rather than copy like for like without adaptations and expect to work anyway.

5. It’s rare but happens. Units have been away from depot for more than a week at a time during the most severe disruption. The service has usually fell apart by the end of it but splits and reformations will be done to keep the service running as much as possible.

Using your example with 185137, splitting it from 185107 was the best plan of action and I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. My idea was to reduce the number of short-forms that are solely as there hasn’t been a driver to take the second unit off Ardwick, which such occasions have been reported in this thread. I’m well aware it wouldn’t completely remove the short-forms but it could reduce them, potentially by a considerable amount.

 

[sjpowermac]

And that would be the only reason to split 185s in such a scenario too. Splitting 185107 and 185137 is an example of such a scenario.

On the maintenance point, that’s exactly why you don’t implement such a setup until you’ve got two units in the same place on maintenance cycle, which requires some clever diagramming beforehand. Of course it isn’t going to work if the two units haven’t first gotten to the same place in the maintenance cycle.

1. 20 out of 89 away from Gosforth each night. Yes it’s lower than the percentage of 185s away from Ardwick each night but it’s not an insignificant number away from the home depot either, and some are away multiple nights in a row as with the 185s.

2. No industrial action (yet) but there is a driver shortage, has been one there for many years. Drivers have been leaving faster than they can be recruited, many of them moved to TPE.

3. These metro units have a significantly lower MTIN than 185s so if anything 185s are less likely to require splitting for a fault. Although Metro’s approach is to take both units out of service regardless when one develops a fault (although the ‘good’ unit would quickly find itself back in service as part of another formation) - that’s something I’m not suggesting be carried over to other operators.

4. That’s the big stumbling block, but with enough thought a solution could likely be found to make it work on TPE. It’s something you take and adapt, rather than copy like for like without adaptations and expect to work anyway.

5. It’s rare but happens. Units have been away from depot for more than a week at a time during the most severe disruption. The service has usually fell apart by the end of it but splits and reformations will be done to keep the service running as much as possible.

Using your example with 185137, splitting it from 185107 was the best plan of action and I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. My idea was to reduce the number of short-forms that are solely as there hasn’t been a driver to take the second unit off Ardwick, which such occasions have been reported in this thread. I’m well aware it wouldn’t completely remove the short-forms but it could reduce them, potentially by a considerable amount.

Many thanks for your response, none of which makes any real difference.

Yes, by all means, insist that Class 185s are all (semi?) permanently coupled, but the downside will be a reduction in operational flexibility, something that in the current climate will result in even more cancellations.

Taking your replies in turn:
1. I have absolutely no knowledge of Metro diagrams, so I’m happy to concede that they might spend a comparable number of nights away from a depot.

2. So, no industrial action or rest day working ban, so you can’t really compare.

3. Why would you expect a Metro tram to run as many miles as a Class 185? Using your reasoning, perhaps the Metro has something to learn from TPE and might stop taking both trams out of service?

4. You say ‘with enough thought a solution could be found’ (to units operating as 3 car due to service disruption). What are your specific proposals? I’d certainly be interested to hear them. You’ve ducked out of saying how the 185 137 situation could/should have been resolved. I’m happy to give you another chance.

5. Interesting that you want TPE to model themselves on a service that ‘usually fell apart by the end of’ (service disruption).

Interesting that you agree that the best course of action was to split 185 137 from 185 107 and yet still insist on arguing for reduced operational flexibility.

I expect if TPE did follow the ‘never split a 185 pair’ then the forum would soon fill up with ‘why couldn’t they split the 6 car and run both services’.

So, just to clarify, in which scenarios would you permit Class 185s to be split? I think you’ve already agreed in the case where service disruption would lead to a train being cancelled. As mentioned, I don’t work for TPE, but observation on the ground would suggest this is a major cause of using 3 car in place of 6 car.

I assume you also wouldn’t object if a 3 car worked in place of a 6 car due to one of the sets requiring additional maintenance.

So, in summary, I think you’ve admitted that your proposal is nonsense.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Many thanks for your response, none of which makes any real difference.

Yes, by all means, insist that Class 185s are all (semi?) permanently coupled, but the downside will be a reduction in operational flexibility, something that in the current climate will result in even more cancellations.

Taking your replies in turn:
1. I have absolutely no knowledge of Metro diagrams, so I’m happy to concede that they might spend a comparable number of nights away from a depot.

2. So, no industrial action or rest day working ban, so you can’t really compare.

3. Why would you expect a Metro tram to run as many miles as a Class 185? Using your reasoning, perhaps the Metro has something to learn from TPE and might stop taking both trams out of service?

4. You say ‘with enough thought a solution could be found’ (to units operating as 3 car due to service disruption). What are your specific proposals? I’d certainly be interested to hear them. You’ve ducked out of saying how the 185 137 situation could/should have been resolved. I’m happy to give you another chance.

5. Interesting that you want TPE to model themselves on a service that ‘usually fell apart by the end of’ (service disruption).

Interesting that you agree that the best course of action was to split 185 137 from 185 107 and yet still insist on arguing for reduced operational flexibility.

I expect if TPE did follow the ‘never split a 185 pair’ then the forum would soon fill up with ‘why couldn’t they split the 6 car and run both services’.

So, just to clarify, in which scenarios would you permit Class 185s to be split? I think you’ve already agreed in the case where service disruption would lead to a train being cancelled. As mentioned, I don’t work for TPE, but observation on the ground would suggest this is a major cause of using 3 car in place of 6 car.

I assume you also wouldn’t object if a 3 car worked in place of a 6 car due to one of the sets requiring additional maintenance.

So, in summary, I think you’ve admitted that your proposal is nonsense.

Don't be ridiculous. This is clearly a hobby horse of yours; there's no reason why proposed 'quasi-permanent' coupling shouldn't work in most circumstances.

 

[Watershed]

You can always chuck your hat into the ring. I'm sure train planning would love your can do attitude

A common refrain, but new ideas are far too often dismissed in the rail industry. In this particular case, semi-permanent coupling of 185s is a non-starter, but that's not to say that there isn't room for improvement in other areas.

It’s been said time and time again that there shouldn’t be 3 car sets at all, as TPE are awash with rolling stock. They should always be formed into 6 car formations

Would the Huddersfield stoppers be able to run as a 6 car with the rear 3 locked out?

Unfortunately not - whilst it'd be fine en-route (C-ASDO ensures only the relevant coaches' doors are released), it generally wouldn't work in terms of platforming at the terminus stations (Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield and Leeds).

Don't be ridiculous. This is clearly a hobby horse of yours; there's no reason why proposed 'quasi-permanent' coupling shouldn't work in most circumstances.

I think the point being made is that whilst it might be fine in principle, there are always going to be circumstances where splitting a set is the 'least worst' option - e.g. the cancellation of an inbound service, as has been explained by @sjpowermac

The lack of RDW is what is really behind most of this chaos, at the end of the day.

 

[sjpowermac]

Don't be ridiculous. This is clearly a hobby horse of yours; there's no reason why proposed 'quasi-permanent' coupling shouldn't work in most circumstances.

Perhaps you would like to justify your opinion?

I invite to you to say how you would respond to the following scenarios that were discussed earlier.

1. A 6 car Class 185 arrives at Liverpool Lime Street. The next working into Liverpool is cancelled. Do you split the Class 185 or insist that it remains a six car and cancel one of the two services?

2. One of a pair of Class 185s has an engine problem whilst working a service and it’s not possible to repair it overnight. Do you take both units out of service or do you put the operational 3 car set into service?

Absolutely not a hobby horse, I’m just curious as to why you and various other posters are so keen to cancel even more trains.

 

[Killingworth]

Frankly, whether TPE run 3 or 6 coach trains is immaterial to most travellers between Sheffield and Manchester at present. EMR and TPE have been missing in action from far too.many services, especially today.

Northern's 2 and 3 car 195s must have been crush loaded taking all the load between TPEs 13.09 and EMRs 20.29 - but Northern also cancelled their 15.14 and 18.14!

No wonder a user writes on another forum "Three times I would have used it (a train) this week... and didn't because I couldn't and now in the future I wouldn't. "

 

[sjpowermac]

Frankly, whether TPE run 3 or 6 coach trains is immaterial to most travellers between Sheffield and Manchester at present. EMR and TPE have been missing in action from far too.many services, especially today.

Northern's 2 and 3 car 195s must have been crush loaded taking all the load between TPEs 13.09 and EMRs 20.29 - but Northern also cancelled their 15.14 and 18.14!

No wonder a user writes on another forum "Three times I would have used it (a train) this week... and didn't because I couldn't and now in the future I wouldn't. "

Whilst I agree the service has seen a lot of cancellations this afternoon, I don’t think your post is accurate.

The following have/are currently scheduled to run between the times that you mentioned.

1811 ex-Sheffield (1B87 1624 Cleethorpes-Liverpool Lime Street)
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C84946/2022-12-28/detailed

1911 ex-Sheffield (1B89 1724 Cleethorpes-Liverpool Lime Street)
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C84948/2022-12-28/detailed

2011 ex-Sheffield (1B91 1824 Cleethorpes-Liverpool Lime Street)
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C84950/2022-12-28/detailed