TPE franchise awarded to First

Class 170101 · 10 Apr 2016

I don't think it will be good for performance for splitting to take place on the through Platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

RailUK Forums

NotATrainspott · 10 Apr 2016

Haydn1971 said:
It doesn't, but you are doing the same as you normally do in turning discussions around to cause an argument ! I've responded to the concept of replacement of a double up 350 with a doubled up AT300 (which was suggested by another - as the AT300s aren't to the best of my knowledge replacing the 350s) - I've outlined several thoughts, some more possible than others - would be nice if you could be constructive rather than destructive with every post !

I don't think a doubled up AT300 (with 660 seats) is going to be necessary between Manchester Airport and Scotland once the service is used only by long distance travellers.

I'd agree, and no one has suggested that - I originally suggested SDO on some platforms where space was constrained for a very limited number of trains per week, but some places, I.e Piccadilly appear to have the space, Airport would be easy to expand, Oxford Road would be difficult.

The issue here is that SDO doesn't work at crucial stations where large numbers of passengers are getting on and off. For instance, it would be more than feasible to use SDO at Lockerbie because all the Lockerbie passengers would be able to be made to use the carriages which will be on the platform. Since Piccadilly, Oxford Road and the Airport are some of the main destinations for the TP Manchester-Scotland services, it wouldn't be possible to have them only in the carriages which will be on the platform. It doesn't matter if it only happens a few times a week since the times it would happen would be the peak anyway, so the impact of any longer dwell times or blocking of other platforms would be as large as it could be.

Well clearly it's not enough, as TPE are running 8 carriage 350s currently on some select busy services - my personal preference is to price passengers onto less busy services, but that's easier said than done?

If there are going to be extra services then the capacity requirements of individual trains isn't as important, as passengers will spread across a larger number of trains.

Greybeard33 · 10 Apr 2016

Class 170101 said:
As for the seating layout why order an Intercity layout for the routes that the AT300 will operate over and not for the remaining routes particularly via the WCML routes, does that not seem strange? The WCML routes are a big revenue generator after all.

You previously suggested that the new WCML trains will be overcrowded because they will have a less dense seating layout than the 350s. If that is the case, it might be preferable for them to have a similar seating layout to the 350s, giving ~25% more seats even with 20m carriages. The AT300 seating layout is not relevant since these will not be used on the WCML.

NotATrainspott said:
I don't think a doubled up AT300 (with 660 seats) is going to be necessary between Manchester Airport and Scotland once the service is used only by long distance travellers.

The AT300s will NOT be used on the WCML services between Manchester Airport and Scotland!

thealexweb · 10 Apr 2016

Greybeard33 said:
The AT300s will NOT be used on the WCML services between Manchester Airport and Scotland!

TheKnightWho said:
They're also ordering 12 of whatever 5-car train works the Scottish services, so there's clearly a big increase in capacity anyway.

Do we have any ideas what these 12 five car 125mph EMUs for the WCML will be? I assumed a Class 80X variant with some form of tilting support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

LNW-GW Joint said:
5-car IEPs are now a well-known quantity and will be in service around the country with GWR and VTEC before TPE gets them.
The GWR order for 5-car trains had options for more of the same, which is the core of the TPE order.
9-car IEPs would not fit in some key TPE stations (Manchester Airport/Oxford Road/Victoria/Salford Crescent and several other stations on their network.
With 5-car trains, you could double up to 10-car on some services (long platforms only), but longer trains could not double up.

The IEP design means that inserting more vehicles is possible, and the long production timescale means vehicles will be available if there is a business case.
After most of the current orders are in service, say by 2020, there might be scope to fine-tune train lengths.
But now, it's more a question of playing fairly safe until the new order settles in.
Remember that Network Rail's ability to extend station platforms is limited and takes an age to deliver.
Also, the costs are significant and you have to have an eye on the impact on premiums to DfT (who will have to OK an order for longer trains).

I see. Thank you

WatcherZero · 10 Apr 2016

thealexweb said:
Do we have any ideas what these 12 five car 125mph EMUs for the WCML will be? I assumed a Class 80X variant with some form of tilting support.

Currently the only manufacturer with capacity to meet the delivery schedule is CAF. They are supposedly offering a 125mph (possibly tilting) emu design that was bid by First for the West Coast franchise, analgous to the Mini-Pendolino that Virgin bid.

The delay in awarding the contract supposedly is in regards to depot and maintenence contracts, First wants CAF to provide a full service support package but CAF isnt keen. First will supposedly walk away and look elsewhere if CAF fails to provide the services they want.

LNW-GW Joint · 10 Apr 2016

thealexweb said:
Do we have any ideas what these 12 five car 125mph EMUs for the WCML will be? I assumed a Class 80X variant with some form of tilting support.

The only 125mph tilting EMU cleared for the WCML is the Alstom 390.
Any other tilting design (which would have to support the installed Alstom TASS balises) will need the full whack of the NR acceptance regime.
Maintenance of a fleet of only 12 units of a different type is also prohibitive.
So in my opinion it's either more Pendolinos (of a more recent design than the current 390s), or a non-tilting EMU which would be limited to 110mph on the WCML.
If Hitachi was preferred supplier you would have expected that to have been announced with the AT300 order.
And deliveries start in "Spring 2018".
Alstom's to lose, in my view, if they really are going to be 125mph.

notlob.divad · 10 Apr 2016

thealexweb said:
Do we have any ideas what these 12 five car 125mph EMUs for the WCML will be? I assumed a Class 80X variant with some form of tilting support.

I doubt they will be Class 80X. If they where to be the same manufacturer as the Hybrids, then surely they would have been announced at the same time.

This thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=126231 covers a lot of the speculation over the future makeup of the TPE fleet.

swt_passenger · 10 Apr 2016

notlob.divad said:
I doubt they will be Class 80X. If they where to be the same manufacturer as the Hybrids, then surely they would have been announced at the same time.

Class number blocks are not reserved to single manufacturers though. There's no obvious reason why any or all of Classs 803-809 could not be used for any other manufacturer's 125 mph fixed formation trains.

notlob.divad · 10 Apr 2016

swt_passenger said:
Class number blocks are not reserved to single manufacturers though. There's no obvious reason why any or all of Classs 803-809 could not be used for any other manufacturer's 125 mph fixed formation trains.

Yes sorry, I didn't make that clear. I meant that I doubt it would be a Hitachi built variant of the Class 800 as appeared to be implied by

I assumed a Class 80X variant with some form of tilting support.

Class 170101 · 10 Apr 2016

Greybeard33 said:
The AT300 seating layout is not relevant since these will not be used on the WCML.

The point I am trying to make is that WCML passengers will feel cheated if they get a poorer standard of seating on these services when compared to the AT300 being used between Manchester Airport / Liverpool and Newcastle / Edinburgh via Leeds. Hence the Intercity seating layout comment.

As I said above I was using the AT300 as a comparision and not suggesting that this train would be used on WCML.

Greybeard33 · 10 Apr 2016

LNW-GW Joint said:
The only 125mph tilting EMU cleared for the WCML is the Alstom 390.
Any other tilting design (which would have to support the installed Alstom TASS balises) will need the full whack of the NR acceptance regime.
Maintenance of a fleet of only 12 units of a different type is also prohibitive.
So in my opinion it's either more Pendolinos (of a more recent design than the current 390s), or a non-tilting EMU which would be limited to 110mph on the WCML.
If Hitachi was preferred supplier you would have expected that to have been announced with the AT300 order.
And deliveries start in "Spring 2018".
Alstom's to lose, in my view, if they really are going to be 125mph.

The interactive map on the DfT franchise announcement website said that the WCML stations would get "brand new 125mph trains", although the interactive timeline described the WCML EMUs as just "12 new electric trains (60 EMU carriages) all in service on Anglo-Scottish services by end 2019". Whereas both the 19 ECML bi-modes for Liverpool - Edinburgh and Airport - Newcastle by end 2020 (since revealed to be AT300s), and the yet-to-be-announced 13 trains for North TPE by end 2018, were specifically described as "125mph trains" in each case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Class 170101 said:
The point I am trying to make is that WCML passengers will feel cheated if they get a poorer standard of seating on these services when compared to the AT300 being used between Manchester Airport / Liverpool and Newcastle / Edinburgh via Leeds. Hence the Intercity seating layout comment.

As I said above I was using the AT300 as a comparision and not suggesting that this train would be used on WCML.

But might the WCML passengers not prefer a "poorer standard of seating" if it meant that more people could actually get a seat?

LNW-GW Joint · 10 Apr 2016

Greybeard33 said:
But might the WCML passengers not prefer a "poorer standard of seating" if it meant that more people could actually get a seat?

It would be a strange thing if a route with no proven demand (TP via ECML to Edinburgh) gets "better" trains than the direct route with a chronic record of overcrowding...

WatcherZero · 10 Apr 2016

The North Tpe trains were not described as 125mph, they were described as 140mph suitable for use on the future northern high speed line.

Haydn1971 · 10 Apr 2016

WatcherZero said:
The delay in awarding the contract supposedly is in regards to depot and maintenence contracts, First wants CAF to provide a full service support package but CAF isnt keen.

Your saying that in a vey matter of fact way, what confirmation have we on CAF ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, the supplied train may well be 125/140mph capable, it doesn't mean it will travel at that speed

Greybeard33 · 10 Apr 2016

WatcherZero said:
The North Tpe trains were not described as 125mph, they were described as 140mph suitable for use on the future northern high speed line.

I was referring to the DfT's interactive timeline which stated:

End of 2018: 13 new 125mph trains (65 carriages) all in service on North Trans-Pennine route

and:

End of 2020: 19 new 125mph bi-mode trains (95 carriages) all in service on Liverpool - Edinburgh and Manchester Airport - Newcastle services.

The Hitachi press release also described the 19 AT300 bi-modes as 125mph, although it quoted the TPE MD-designate as saying:

These trains will be able to run at speeds of 125 miles per hour but they also have the capability of running at 140 miles per hour if the network allows for it in the future.

Have you seen any description of the first 13 trains (supplier not yet announced) as 140mph capable?

john.aston.96 · 10 Apr 2016

On the wnxx forum has been mentioned that the unannounced preferred supplier for both sets of remaining orders is CAF with Hatachi likely to be back up if CAF stall...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sprinterguy · 10 Apr 2016

Haydn1971 said:
So looking increasing likely at the five car EMUs would be in fact 20m units to fit at Manchester on the ~208m platforms when doubled up

No, exceedingly likely that the units will not be doubled up in the first place.

WatcherZero · 10 Apr 2016

No, its only ever the ones intended for North TPE that have been referred to as 140.

Haydn1971 · 10 Apr 2016

sprinterguy said:
No, exceedingly likely that the units will not be doubled up in the first place.

That's a little worrying given how full the doubled up units are

Class 170101 · 10 Apr 2016

Greybeard33 said:
But might the WCML passengers not prefer a "poorer standard of seating" if it meant that more people could actually get a seat?

LNW-GW Joint said:
It would be a strange thing if a route with no proven demand (TP via ECML to Edinburgh) gets "better" trains than the direct route with a chronic record of overcrowding...

I would concur with LNW on this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sprinterguy said:
No, exceedingly likely that the units will not be doubled up in the first place.

Haydn1971 said:
That's a little worrying given how full the doubled up units are

However it seems overcrowding is likely without some element of doubling up which in itself is unlikely.

Having now checked Manchester Aiport Platform length it is indeed 200m not the 160m I thought it was. However thats a seven carriage train at 26m per carriage or 10 carriages at 20m per carriage for maximum length without major infrastructure works.

Also are there sufficient of the longer platforms at both Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley to accommodate these services terminating there and consequently blocking the platforms for lonmger periods of time. Particularly at Edinburgh given discussions with other operators concerning the services they wish to run on the ECML towards Newcastle and beyond.

sprinterguy · 10 Apr 2016

Haydn1971 said:
That's a little worrying given how full the doubled up units are

Class 170101 said:
However it seems overcrowding is likely without some element of doubling up which in itself is unlikely.

It certainly is a concern for those few 8-car peak time trains that operate out of Manchester, although they are in the minority and I don't know how they fare further north (My experiences are that TPE Scottish services are busiest at the Manchester end, but I've only travelled the full route on four car trains).

YorkshireBear · 11 Apr 2016

LNW-GW Joint said:
It would be a strange thing if a route with no proven demand (TP via ECML to Edinburgh) gets "better" trains than the direct route with a chronic record of overcrowding...

Yes but of course that could be seen as a piece meal of services. Leeds/York to Edinburgh via ECMl is a proven route, as is North TPE.... It is not all about the end to end.

pemma · 11 Apr 2016

Haydn1971 said:
Your saying that in a vey matter of fact way, what confirmation have we on CAF ?

It's come from Tony Miles. He understands that if the First WC franchise had gone ahead the new 6 car EMUs would have come from CAF, with First in talks over ordering a 5 car version for TPE. The problem appears to relate to First wanting CAF to provide a maintenance depot and CAF not properly understanding how the semi-privatised industry in the UK works meaning First themselves can't give CAF any assurances about the long term future of maintenance depots. There's apparently a site in Cheshire which has been earmarked for a maintenance depot but alternatives are being considered.

BurtonM · 11 Apr 2016

TPE have got their in-house CIS voice bloke to re-do the word 'northern'. Doesn't quite sound right, it's spoken too slowly and there's too much empty space either side - announcements of trains to Wigan Wallgate are a real mess now. (...NORTHERN... service to... WIGAN). It almost has a slightly scornful tone to it like the disgusted inflection on the end of 'TransPennine Express' on Atos systems. TPE phrase not been touched as it isn't necessary.

scotsman · 11 Apr 2016

sprinterguy said:
It certainly is a concern for those few 8-car peak time trains that operate out of Manchester, although they are in the minority and I don't know how they fare further north (My experiences are that TPE Scottish services are busiest at the Manchester end, but I've only travelled the full route on four car trains).

Depends on the time of day and year, Scottish trains can get very full up north, but only when 3/4 cars. Or 6 vice 4 or 8. People tend to stick to one unit and won't move to the other half.

But they are, without exception, fuller on the southern half of the route.

hibtastic · 11 Apr 2016

scotsman said:
Depends on the time of day and year, Scottish trains can get very full up north, but only when 3/4 cars. Or 6 vice 4 or 8. People tend to stick to one unit and won't move to the other half.

But they are, without exception, fuller on the southern half of the route.

The 14:17 Edinburgh to Manchester Airport is a very busy service on a Friday which is why it is usually 2x 350. Its often full by the time it leaves Waverley.

quantinghome · 11 Apr 2016

Won't the Northern Connect services provide additional capacity on the southern part of the route?

LNW-GW Joint · 11 Apr 2016

jcollins said:
It's come from Tony Miles. He understands that if the First WC franchise had gone ahead the new 6 car EMUs would have come from CAF, with First in talks over ordering a 5 car version for TPE. The problem appears to relate to First wanting CAF to provide a maintenance depot and CAF not properly understanding how the semi-privatised industry in the UK works meaning First themselves can't give CAF any assurances about the long term future of maintenance depots. There's apparently a site in Cheshire which has been earmarked for a maintenance depot but alternatives are being considered.

This is very messy.
TPE has no in-house maintenance capability (all done by Siemens for the 185s/350s).
Nobody in the UK has experience of modern CAF EMU designs (especially if it is 125mph tilting stock).
The trend is very much for manufacturers to maintain their kit, and take reliability risk (as with the AT300s and Hitachi, using the sites established for VTEC IEPs ).
Northern still hasn't confirmed how/where it will maintain the Civitys.
What you say may have been the case in 2012, but is unlikely today.
No wonder they are on to Plan B.

notlob.divad · 11 Apr 2016

I agree, it all does seem very messy.
What cannot be helping Northern is that they have a brand new fleet of EMUs that cannot share the same Depot as half are for West of the Pennines and the other half for East. The only West pennine Depot looking to have wires is Allerton but the new EMUs are not scheduled to serve Lpool and they possibly have their hands full with the 319s. Most of the new DMUs are doing the connect services which seems to have a focus on the Victoria to Bradford Corridor so Newton Heath would seem sensible for those.

As for TPE, Cheshire would seem a rather strange location to me. It is outside of TPEs operating area, with all services West of the Pennies being focused on Chat Moss and the WCML north of Wigan. If it is a brand new build depot on none railway land, the old Parkside colliery site outside Newton-Le-Willows would be a good location, but has been earmarked for sometime for a strategic rail-freight depot due to the potential motorway access.

pemma · 11 Apr 2016

notlob.divad said:
As for TPE, Cheshire would seem a rather strange location to me. It is outside of TPEs operating area, with all services West of the Pennies being focused on Chat Moss and the WCML north of Wigan.

Cheshire is only a stone's throw from Manchester Airport, in fact some of the land the Airport has expanded in to since 1974 is in Cheshire. However, the location I've heard is between Sandbach and Crewe which to me sounds like they are revisiting an option they would have used had the First WC franchise gone ahead.

Arriva Train Care have been advertising a few positions based in Crewe recently so maybe they are to do some work for the Northern franchise.

TPE franchise awarded to First

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member