TPE Rolling Stock - Post Diggle Line Electrification

YorkshireBear · 14 Dec 2017

61653 HTAFC said:
If they only stop at Leeds, they wouldn't be semi-fasts though- they'd be fasts!
I agree that Hull appears to lose out (along with Cottingley; Morley; Batley; Mirfield; Slaithwaite; Marsden; Greenfield and Mossley, of course) unfairly as a result of the semi-fast plans for North TPE.

Of course this thread is looking further into the future and beyond the current franchise. Supposedly if and when wires go up, proper local services may return- in which case my assumption is that the Hull to Manchester service will return to the current arrangements of calling only at Dewsbury and Huddersfield within the core. The Leeds to Manchester semi-fast either does the same or is withdrawn completely. True local services between Huddersfield and both Leeds and Manchester are reintroduced operated by EMUs, possibly joined either side of Huddersfield if this reduces the number of diagrams needed.

I suppose we will find out too when the Transpennine Rail Upgrade (TRU) and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) funding and scopes become clear. Without more loops (and functional loops) the stoppers are unlikely to ever return I don't think.

I think we are close to understanding what TRU will look like, Network Rail have presented their work to the DfT today according to internal news. NPR might be a good while longer before we fully understand what gets built, if anything does at all.

RailUK Forums

ash39 · 14 Dec 2017

IanXC said:
Quite why the DfT felt that York needed 4 fast services per hour to Manchester, and Hull, a much bigger city, with a much more populous surrounding area, didn't need one at all - and can make do with 1 semi fast train per hour I don't think we will ever know.

I won't disagree that Hull warrants a better service to Manchester. I think you might be exaggerating slightly on your claim though. York population at 2011 census was 198,051 - Hull's was 256,406. Hardly as big a gap as you make out. Also York attracts a huge amount of tourists, particularly at weekends, so it justifies its service provision in my view.

edwin_m · 14 Dec 2017

ash39 said:
I won't disagree that Hull warrants a better service to Manchester. I think you might be exaggerating slightly on your claim though. York population at 2011 census was 198,051 - Hull's was 256,406. Hardly as big a gap as you make out. Also York attracts a huge amount of tourists, particularly at weekends, so it justifies its service provision in my view.

York is also a railhead for quite a large surrounding area, Hull's catchment is limited by much of it being in the sea or on the other side of the Humber. Then again Scarborough's is probably even more limited.

AndrewE · 14 Dec 2017

YorkshireBear said:
I suppose we will find out too when the Transpennine Rail Upgrade (TRU) and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) funding and scopes become clear. Without more loops (and functional loops) the stoppers are unlikely to ever return I don't think.

I think we are close to understanding what TRU will look like, Network Rail have presented their work to the DfT today according to internal news. NPR might be a good while longer before we fully understand what gets built, if anything does at all.

Let's hope for a Pennine base tunnel then! I suppose it is about as likely as Welwyn quadrupling (or less so, not being on a line directly serving London) so I don't expect to see it in my lifetime...

Nean · 14 Dec 2017

ash39 said:
I won't disagree that Hull warrants a better service to Manchester. I think you might be exaggerating slightly on your claim though. York population at 2011 census was 198,051 - Hull's was 256,406. Hardly as big a gap as you make out. Also York attracts a huge amount of tourists, particularly at weekends, so it justifies its service provision in my view.

However Hull's metropolitan area is over 415k people compared to Yorks 234k due to all the villages in the East Riding not wanting to be incorporated...

The main problem is the train is already slower than the car and is more often less comfortable!

YorkshireBear · 14 Dec 2017

Nean said:
However Hull's metropolitan area is over 415k people compared to Yorks 234k due to all the villages in the East Riding not wanting to be incorporated...

The main problem is the train is already slower than the car and is more often less comfortable!

The argument over who deserves more is a little example of something the North does very bad at. Competing for who is worse off.

Actually the comparison here is irrelevant. As York gets 6x the amount of direct trains to Leeds than Hull. So Hull clearly needs more. Although again it is not that simple as York is just simply on the way to more places and not served as a destination in itself by the majority of those services.

The bold above is the key part for me.

pdq · 14 Dec 2017

61653 HTAFC said:
I agree that Hull appears to lose out (along with Cottingley; Morley; Batley; Mirfield; Slaithwaite; Marsden; Greenfield and Mossley, of course) unfairly as a result of the semi-fast plans for North TPE.

I suppose 'losing out' depends on what's being lost... Isn't Batley going to get a direct service to Manchester Picc, which I would see as a gain? How many services an hour will Batley get with the new timetable? Will there now be 2 an hour to HUD (or beyond) plus the Calder Valley stopper - or does it stay with one to HUD and one Calder?

61653 HTAFC · 14 Dec 2017

pdq said:
I suppose 'losing out' depends on what's being lost... Isn't Batley going to get a direct service to Manchester Picc, which I would see as a gain? How many services an hour will Batley get with the new timetable? Will there now be 2 an hour to HUD (or beyond) plus the Calder Valley stopper - or does it stay with one to HUD and one Calder?

The loss is that this wonderful direct service to Piccadilly will (a) be slower than the current journey available with a same-platform change at Dewsbury, and (b) already overcrowded with Hull passengers!

As for stopping patterns on the semi-fasts, I've heard different things ranging from 1tph all, 2tph all (not sure how that would work, as surely they'd be stoppers in that case) or 1tph at smaller stops but with Mirfield (due to being a junction) and possibly Batley being served by both.

pemma · 14 Dec 2017

61653 HTAFC said:
The loss is that this wonderful direct service to Piccadilly will (a) be slower than the current journey available with a same-platform change at Dewsbury, and (b) already overcrowded with Hull passengers!

As for stopping patterns on the semi-fasts, I've heard different things ranging from 1tph all, 2tph all (not sure how that would work, as surely they'd be stoppers in that case) or 1tph at smaller stops but with Mirfield (due to being a junction) and possibly Batley being served by both.

I'm pretty sure standard pattern will see the same number of services at almost all stations not currently served by TPE, with Batley being an exception and getting an additional hourly service in each direction.

61653 HTAFC · 14 Dec 2017

jcollins said:
I'm pretty sure standard pattern will see the same number of services at almost all stations not currently served by TPE, with Batley being an exception and getting an additional hourly service in each direction.

This extra for Batley, if it does come to pass... is that an extra call on one of the other TPE services? An extra call on the other semi-fast? Or the Northern Calder Valley via Dewsbury and Brighouse service?

If of course course the semi-fasts have a set calling pattern, each serving every other station, then that's still an hourly service. At present Batley has 2tph to Leeds, with in the other direction 1tph direct to either Huddersfield or Manchester Victoria via Brighouse, of which both provide the option of changing onto a faster service to Huddersfield and beyond at Dewsbury. It's probably safe to assume that at best the present frequency will be maintained, with no likelihood of an actual improvement*.

*= apart from Sundays going to the same service level as weekdays, which is long overdue.

pemma · 14 Dec 2017

Both semi-fasts to call at Batley. There is one station which will get a TPE call in one direction and Northern in the other - I can't remember which one it is.

YorkshireBear · 14 Dec 2017

Ofc the LDS-Man Vic (Southpor) via Dewsbury service is to remain.

delt1c · 14 Dec 2017

DanNCL said:
I can't see the locomotive hauled stock being transferred to the Newcastle/Edinburgh route, even after Manchester to York is wired, as they would need a new build 125 mph loco to haul them, and none of the manufacturers are likely to design one just for one small order like this. What I think is more likely is that more 397s would be ordered for the Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the 802s being used to displace the locomotive hauled stock on to Hull/South TPE services, in turn allowing the 185s to be transferred to another operator (possibly Northern?)

(I'm sure someone will suggest something ridiculous such as using redundant 373 power cars hauling Mark 5s as an alternative; it won't ever happen)

No way, redundant 442's used to top and tail the Mk5's

anti-pacer · 14 Dec 2017

Whilst not wishing to start a North/South "who gets what" debate/argument, if the government is serious about the Northern Powerhouse, then the North TPE wires need to go up. It's high time we got our share up here.

IanXC · 14 Dec 2017

ash39 said:
I won't disagree that Hull warrants a better service to Manchester. I think you might be exaggerating slightly on your claim though. York population at 2011 census was 198,051 - Hull's was 256,406. Hardly as big a gap as you make out. Also York attracts a huge amount of tourists, particularly at weekends, so it justifies its service provision in my view.

edwin_m said:
York is also a railhead for quite a large surrounding area, Hull's catchment is limited by much of it being in the sea or on the other side of the Humber. Then again Scarborough's is probably even more limited.

I don't see it as being about links to Leeds, clearly geography means York has much more frequent links to Leeds than could probably be justified in other circumstances.

It's also not about saying York has more than it deserves, arguably it doesn't.

But, when we consider York versus Hull on fast links to Manchester, it is quite clear that there is a significant imbalance!

Hull acts as the railhead for the vast majority of the East Riding of Yorkshire (population 337,000).

I would therefore suggest Hull has a catchment at least as large as York's (in terms of resident population).

Remember what we are talking about is the difference between similar cities having 1 semi fast train per hour, and 4 fast trains per hour...

edwin_m · 14 Dec 2017

IanXC said:
Hull acts as the railhead for the vast majority of the East Riding of Yorkshire (population 337,000).

Most of the East Riding lies west of Hull, and people are unlikely to head east to railhead for a train westwards - in fact for the north-western part of the county York would be a better railhead even if the train service was the same in Hull. I do accept that the population is likely to be more concentrated in the east, and that several of the alternative railheads feed into the trains to/from Hull in any case.

IanXC · 14 Dec 2017

edwin_m said:
Most of the East Riding lies west of Hull, and people are unlikely to head east to railhead for a train westwards - in fact for the north-western part of the county York would be a better railhead even if the train service was the same in Hull. I do accept that the population is likely to be more concentrated in the east, and that several of the alternative railheads feed into the trains to/from Hull in any case.

By the time you take account of Brough, Howden and Selby you'll find that the overwhelming majority of 'drive to stations' passengers from the East Riding have joined the train. You'd have to be mad to drive to York for a departure after about 0700.

TPE Rolling Stock - Post Diggle Line Electrification

YorkshireBear

Established Member

RailUK Forums

ash39

Established Member

edwin_m

Veteran Member

AndrewE

Established Member

Nean

Member

YorkshireBear

Established Member

pdq

Member

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member

pemma

Veteran Member

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member

pemma

Veteran Member

YorkshireBear

Established Member

delt1c

Established Member

anti-pacer

Established Member

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator

edwin_m

Veteran Member

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator