TransPennine Express North Route, New Timetable

AndrewE · 28 Oct 2018

LittleAH said:
... the 2 MK3 rakes not being allowed to be used has certainly had it's impact.

Really? On what grounds are they not allowed to be used? It was a franchise condition (or commitment.) The TOC might not have been allowed to hire the staff they would have needed to introduce the trains, but the fact that a token service was run last Christmas supports the belief that it was a contractual obligation.

RailUK Forums

Greybeard33 · 28 Oct 2018

Camden said:
It's hardly "anti-manc" to recognise the causes behind the day to day misery that people have to endure, and quite honestly the paranoid suggestion there is some kind of "anti-manc" conspiracy lurking behind anything that doesn't prioritise your city over another is wearing a little thin.

You can't complain about London being prioritised over elsewhere, only to demand that your particular favourite takes its place. Railways need sensible, rather than political, decisions so that they can fulfill their function.

In what way has the new timetable prioritised Greater Manchester?

There are fewer services to the Airport than under the old timetable. Still 4 TPE hourly, but only 4 Northern, versus 5 before May. The unreliability of the Airport service must be detering potential passengers, and so hurting the revenue and profits of Manchester Airports Group, in which the GM councils are shareholders.

As far as GM rail users are concerned, the service from Victoria to Leeds is more frequent, but the service from Piccadilly to Leeds is less frequent and slower even when on time. Passengers are suffering daily delays, cancellations and overcrowded platforms and trains, on local as well as long distance services. I am sure the majority, in GM as elsewhere across the North, would welcome a return to the old timetable.

tbtc · 28 Oct 2018

Greybeard33 said:
In what way has the new timetable prioritised Greater Manchester?

IMHO because the apparent need to link everywhere with Manchester Airport (and a heavy rail link from Piccadilly to Victoria) has meant spending best part of £100m so we don't have to reverse services at Piccadilly to reach the Airport.

That means squeezing more services over the Castlefield corridor, that means services becoming less reliable across northern England (because linking everywhere with Manchester Airport means that delays quickly spread across the Northern/ TPE network).

That means that the fringes end up losing their services because a minor delay at Oxford Road is the difference between a TPE service getting all the way to Scarborough/ Middlesbrough and the TPE service having to terminate short so it can make up time on its way back to Lancashire (since they can't afford to be late on the way back through York/ Leeds/ Manchester).

The obsession with long distance links means that Scarborough - York (which could be a simple shuttle into the bay platforms at York for much of the day) has become an unreliable service - since we have a timetable that started with "how can we try to squeeze more services through central Manchester" and the fringes of the network pay the price for that. Oxford Road sneezes and Scarborough catches flu.

Similarly, the need for both Newcastle and Middlesbrough to have direct hourly services to Manchester Airport means the nonsense of a 15/45 minute frequency from Newcastle to Leeds/ Huddersfield/ Manchester.

The delays in Manchester aren't so bad because (with eight or nine trains per hour from the Airport to Piccadilly) there are alternative services in the event of a cancellation - but there are no other services linking Scarborough/ Middlesbrough to York, so the effect on these towns is much more noticeable.

The Metrolink network works well because they stick to a few simple routes - they don't try to give every branch a direct service to the Airport or Media City every hour - there are well balanced frequencies with opportunities to change. But instead of taking that approach on heavy rail, we've created a carefully interwoven network of services (to maximise a variety of links to Manchester Airport) that falls apart at the edges when there's disruption in the Castlefield corridor. Mancunians may not notice these delays so much but people stuck at places like Malton will.

Greybeard33 · 28 Oct 2018

tbtc said:
IMHO because the apparent need to link everywhere with Manchester Airport (and a heavy rail link from Piccadilly to Victoria) has meant spending best part of £100m so we don't have to reverse services at Piccadilly to reach the Airport.

That means squeezing more services over the Castlefield corridor, that means services becoming less reliable across northern England (because linking everywhere with Manchester Airport means that delays quickly spread across the Northern/ TPE network).

That means that the fringes end up losing their services because a minor delay at Oxford Road is the difference between a TPE service getting all the way to Scarborough/ Middlesbrough and the TPE service having to terminate short so it can make up time on its way back to Lancashire (since they can't afford to be late on the way back through York/ Leeds/ Manchester).

The obsession with long distance links means that Scarborough - York (which could be a simple shuttle into the bay platforms at York for much of the day) has become an unreliable service - since we have a timetable that started with "how can we try to squeeze more services through central Manchester" and the fringes of the network pay the price for that. Oxford Road sneezes and Scarborough catches flu.

Similarly, the need for both Newcastle and Middlesbrough to have direct hourly services to Manchester Airport means the nonsense of a 15/45 minute frequency from Newcastle to Leeds/ Huddersfield/ Manchester.

The delays in Manchester aren't so bad because (with eight or nine trains per hour from the Airport to Piccadilly) there are alternative services in the event of a cancellation - but there are no other services linking Scarborough/ Middlesbrough to York, so the effect on these towns is much more noticeable.

The Metrolink network works well because they stick to a few simple routes - they don't try to give every branch a direct service to the Airport or Media City every hour - there are well balanced frequencies with opportunities to change. But instead of taking that approach on heavy rail, we've created a carefully interwoven network of services (to maximise a variety of links to Manchester Airport) that falls apart at the edges when there's disruption in the Castlefield corridor. Mancunians may not notice these delays so much but people stuck at places like Malton will.

Everywhere, except Newcastle, that now has direct services to the Airport also had them under the old timetable. And the Airport - Newcastle service is an extension of the previous Airport - York, not an additional service. On the other hand, Southport has lost its direct Airport service.

So where is the benefit from diverting the two TPE Airport services around the Ordsall Chord, instead of reversing them at Piccadilly? We were promised more paths for Northern services south from Piccadilly, but all we have got is an additional hourly service to Buxton, while the hourly Piccadilly - Airport shuttle has been lost. It has now emerged that the other promised services cannot be squeezed into the timetable.

Few locals would use TPE just to get from Piccadilly to Victoria, even if it were a dependable service. Generally quicker to take the Metrolink, or walk.

61653 HTAFC · 28 Oct 2018

The reaction to @scarby 's post proves that there's no room for nuance on here. It seemed pretty obvious to me that they weren't being serious about closing the route, simply commenting on the fact that the current service is so poor that it might as well be.

A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but those of us living on the lesser-served areas of the route are fed up of being sacrificed for the metropolitan elites. The only saving grace of the new timetable is that I'm not affected by the Northern strikes on Saturdays (though given the fortunes of my football team that may be a curse rather than a blessing!).

tbtc · 28 Oct 2018

Greybeard33 said:
Everywhere, except Newcastle, that now has direct services to the Airport also had them under the old timetable. And the Airport - Newcastle service is an extension of the previous Airport - York, not an additional service. On the other hand, Southport has lost its direct Airport service.

So where is the benefit from diverting the two TPE Airport services around the Ordsall Chord, instead of reversing them at Piccadilly? We were promised more paths for Northern services south from Piccadilly, but all we have got is an additional hourly service to Buxton, while the hourly Piccadilly - Airport shuttle has been lost. It has now emerged that the other promised services cannot be squeezed into the timetable.

Few locals would use TPE just to get from Piccadilly to Victoria, even if it were a dependable service. Generally quicker to take the Metrolink, or walk.

You say that the Airport "shuttle" has been lost, but it's really just been combined with other services as part of the apparent need for Liverpool to get two Airport trains per hour (helpfully running within eight minutes of each other, because every line is now tied into the service on every other line, which means some terrible co-ordination).

As I understand it, the majority of the additional capacity at Piccadilly comes from the (old) Scarborough - Liverpool no longer crossing the entire throat (from the Guide Bridge line to the Oxford Road line) two times each hour (i.e. once in each direction) - the lack of Airport reversals hasn't made much difference. But as there's only around thirty three passengers on each Airport service, it's still a waste of scarce DMUs.

Given that there are already nine trains per hour from Piccadilly to the Airport, I'm not sure what additional services can be crammed onto that line - much better to increase the number of Stockport services at the expense of a couple of Airport trains (the Stockport trains certainly have more than thirty-odd passengers!).

Few people may take the train from Pic to Vic but this was the centrepiece of the Manchester Hub (later rebranded the "Northern Hub" by promising a handful of things outside Manchester City Centre - e.g. a passing loop at Bamford, to keep other places happy). Manchester gets what Manchester wants (and Scarborough/ Middlesbrough suffer big gaps in service as a result).

As I've said before, they should keep the route maps simple - a regular/frequent service from central Manchester to the Airport/ Leeds/ Preston/ Liverpool/ Crewe/ Rochdale/ Wigan (etc) rather than the complicated attempt to provide an hourly service from each line onto every other line.

ajdunlop · 28 Oct 2018

Would things be improved if the following were done?
- regular airport shuttle service using existing medium distance services (e.g Manchester Airport to Liverpool) and new Chord services mentioned below.
- No TPEs direct to airport but keeping airport advanced tickets from their destinations with the special provisions for late flights.
- All North Tanspennine TPE services to Liverpool carry on going through Victoria and all others terminate at Piccadilly.
- Chord used for new Northern Services to the Airport from Stalybridge and Rochdale. Stops Castlefield corridor delays spreading too wide. These services could stop at all stations in central manchester including new Salford Central platforms and be eventually using a high volume suburban fleet. A Manchester S-Bahn if you like.

Greybeard33 · 28 Oct 2018

tbtc said:
You say that the Airport "shuttle" has been lost, but it's really just been combined with other services as part of the apparent need for Liverpool to get two Airport trains per hour (helpfully running within eight minutes of each other, because every line is now tied into the service on every other line, which means some terrible co-ordination).

As I understand it, the majority of the additional capacity at Piccadilly comes from the (old) Scarborough - Liverpool no longer crossing the entire throat (from the Guide Bridge line to the Oxford Road line) two times each hour (i.e. once in each direction) - the lack of Airport reversals hasn't made much difference. But as there's only around thirty three passengers on each Airport service, it's still a waste of scarce DMUs.

Given that there are already nine trains per hour from Piccadilly to the Airport, I'm not sure what additional services can be crammed onto that line - much better to increase the number of Stockport services at the expense of a couple of Airport trains (the Stockport trains certainly have more than thirty-odd passengers!).

There were 5 Northern tph from Piccadilly to the Airport (10tph total including ATW), versus 4tph now. The Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport has been linked to the Chat Moss stopper, but the Piccadilly - Airport shuttle has been lost. So there has been no net additional capacity released by the diversion of the Scarborough train - just one more Northern train on the Stockport line but one less on the Airport line.

Few people may take the train from Pic to Vic but this was the centrepiece of the Manchester Hub (later rebranded the "Northern Hub" by promising a handful of things outside Manchester City Centre - e.g. a passing loop at Bamford, to keep other places happy). Manchester gets what Manchester wants (and Scarborough/ Middlesbrough suffer big gaps in service as a result).

As I've said before, they should keep the route maps simple - a regular/frequent service from central Manchester to the Airport/ Leeds/ Preston/ Liverpool/ Crewe/ Rochdale/ Wigan (etc) rather than the complicated attempt to provide an hourly service from each line onto every other line.

The Manchester/Northern Hub was developed by Network Rail in response to the requirements orginally specified by the (Leeds based) "Northern Way" group in the noughties. All about increasing capacity through Manchester for long distance services, not a case of "what Manchester wants". But the failure of the DfT to approve the Piccadilly/Oxford Road capacity scheme (despite repeated representations by Manchester City Council and the GM Mayor) means that the Ordsall Chord bit of the Hub has just worsened congestion.

scarby · 29 Oct 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
The reaction to @scarby 's post proves that there's no room for nuance on here. It seemed pretty obvious to me that they weren't being serious about closing the route, simply commenting on the fact that the current service is so poor that it might as well be.

Correct!

Oh well, the 0946 is cancelled again today.

As for improvements with the next timetable change, that's all well and good, but what about the next 5-6 weeks? November is probably one of the busiest months for regular travellers needing to get to places on time, with probably the least number of people on holiday (i.e the most number of people using trains for work), business conference season, colleges in full swing, schools, Christmas shopping gearing up, etc.

Bantamzen · 29 Oct 2018

Greybeard33 said:
The Manchester/Northern Hub was developed by Network Rail in response to the requirements orginally specified by the (Leeds based) "Northern Way" group in the noughties. All about increasing capacity through Manchester for long distance services, not a case of "what Manchester wants". But the failure of the DfT to approve the Piccadilly/Oxford Road capacity scheme (despite repeated representations by Manchester City Council and the GM Mayor) means that the Ordsall Chord bit of the Hub has just worsened congestion.

This is indeed one of the main causes of the issues as things stand. Approving the Chord, but leaving the Piccadilly P15/16 hanging in the air has led in part to this situation. I'm sure, with a little bit of political will both projects could have been done side by side had both been approved.

But let's also not forget that this is far from the only problem. Some people may be focused firmly on what they consider to be a highly unreasonable situation of long distance trains serving an airport where more & more passengers wish to travel to, and consider it the prime if not only reason for the current timetable problems. But the fact remains that even before the May changes, the North TP was subject to regular delays with fasts catching up with the stoppers, which in May was made all the worse by running the stoppers through Huddersfield. And it is here where both a lack of intelligent timetabling, combined with a precious lack of investment that has led to a bottleneck that is easily as bad, & probably worse than the relatively short Castlefield bottleneck. A few minor adjustments to the Manchester corridor, like asking Northern to not use Oxford Road for crew changes or terminating services there ought to help smooth the flow a bit. Then throw in better turnaround time at places like the Airport & Scarborough will mean that neither destination should see anything like the number of cancellations.

All of which would just lead two outstanding issues, P15/16 at Piccadilly, and the North TransPennine upgrade / wiring. Over to you Minister.....

Kite159 · 29 Oct 2018

AndrewE said:
Really? On what grounds are they not allowed to be used? It was a franchise condition (or commitment.) The TOC might not have been allowed to hire the staff they would have needed to introduce the trains, but the fact that a token service was run last Christmas supports the belief that it was a contractual obligation.

They couldn't be used due to some disabled users kicking off about lack of wheelchair space (or something along those lines).

Silly bit of outside the box thinking: TPE to sub-hire 2x 170s from Northern [assuming the 170s are cleared York to Scarborough], and run an hourly shuttle between Scarborough & York. The existing TPE service to Scarborough can then be cut back to York.

Yes I know it is a downgrade for passengers of Scarborough/Malton as they will have to change at York for onward connections, but the services will run mostly on time with a reduced risk of the services getting turned back early due to delays earlier in the journey when a 185 gets caught behind a late running 319

Solent&Wessex · 29 Oct 2018

The Castlefield Corridor was a problem at the start of the current timetable as Northern driver shortages meant lots of trains were being abandoned at Oxford Road and Victoria blocking platforms. The corridor is still a bit of an issue, especially at peak times mainly due to station dwell times, but not anywhere near as bad as at the start.

The main reason that Scarborough, Newcastle and Middlesbrough etc loose out (and also why the Hull services regularly get turned back at Stalybridge) is not really to do with the Castlefield corridor, but almost entirely to do with

a) the stupidly tight train and crew diagrams which see units have circa 10 minute turn rounds at each end of a 3hr journey, and drivers have diagrams which have things such as a 30 minute break in a 34 minute gap between trains meaning that even the slightest delay immediately knocks on to the next working and there is no chance to recover

and

b) the spacing and interaction between the fast and stopping trains between Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Leeds and Micklefield is poor. In the main there are no more trains than before May, but trains are spaced differently and are only minutes apart with no room for error. For example, at Stalybridge towards Leeds there is only 3 minutes between the fast to Middlesbrough and the stopper to Leeds. If Middlesbrough is more than 3 mins late then the stopper is late. But by time the stopper is next overtaken at Dewsbury by the Scarborough, the Scarborough is only 2 minutes behind it, so if the Middlesbrough is 3 mins late or more then the stopper is late which then delays the Scarborough. Things then loose their paths and platforms at Leeds and York and then what may only be a insignificant few minutes delay to one train (which may have nothing to do with congestion through Castlefield) suddenly snowballs.

Add in a) above to b) then it becomes impossible to recover properly.

Splitting the stopper at Huddersfield in December will help significantly with b) but adding 1 more unit at MIA will not solve a) at all.

BMIFlyer · 29 Oct 2018

Kite159 said:
They couldn't be used due to some disabled users kicking off about lack of wheelchair space (or something along those lines).

Silly bit of outside the box thinking: TPE to sub-hire 2x 170s from Northern [assuming the 170s are cleared York to Scarborough], and run an hourly shuttle between Scarborough & York. The existing TPE service to Scarborough can then be cut back to York.

Yes I know it is a downgrade for passengers of Scarborough/Malton as they will have to change at York for onward connections, but the services will run mostly on time with a reduced risk of the services getting turned back early due to delays earlier in the journey when a 185 gets caught behind a late running 319

Nearly correct - the 170's are for the Leeds to Huddersfield stopper.

Spartacus · 29 Oct 2018

BMIFlyer said:
Nearly correct - the 170's are for the Leeds to Huddersfield stopper.

I think using 170s on Scarboroughs might make more sense than stoppers given their poor acceleration compared to 185s, were it not for the frequent door issues that 185s have at a lot of the local stops.

BMIFlyer · 29 Oct 2018

Spartacus said:
I think using 170s on Scarboroughs might make more sense than stoppers given their poor acceleration compared to 185s, were it not for the frequent door issues that 185s have at a lot of the local stops.

The 170's are going on the stoppers - been confirmed already.

Perfect as there is no 1st class and also different style of door mechanisms should also help.

Kite159 · 29 Oct 2018

BMIFlyer said:
Nearly correct - the 170's are for the Leeds to Huddersfield stopper.

It was a silly idea I had to temporary solve the Scarborough problem. I.e. having a self contained shuttle service, I know it means folk having to change at York but that should be better than finding the 185 has been cancelled yet again due to poor timetable planning.

BMIFlyer · 29 Oct 2018

Kite159 said:
It was a silly idea I had to temporary solve the Scarborough problem. I.e. having a self contained shuttle service, I know it means folk having to change at York but that should be better than finding the 185 has been cancelled yet again due to poor timetable planning.

I believe the turnarounds at Scarborough are changing from 9 Dec to become just over 1 hour. Only possible with the 185s gained from removing them away from the Leeds to Hudds stoppers of course so we shall see what exactly happens.

Spartacus · 29 Oct 2018

BMIFlyer said:
The 170's are going on the stoppers - been confirmed already.

Perfect as there is no 1st class and also different style of door mechanisms should also help.

That's a point, do these services currently officially have 1st class?

BMIFlyer · 29 Oct 2018

Spartacus said:
That's a point, do these services currently officially have 1st class?

1st class is on every TPE service.

TheVicLine · 29 Oct 2018

BMIFlyer said:
I believe the turnarounds at Scarborough are changing from 9 Dec to become just over 1 hour. Only possible with the 185s gained from removing them away from the Leeds to Hudds stoppers of course so we shall see what exactly happens.

1hr 18m I think I was told for the turnaround time, however it's all dependent on the 68's being introduced in December.

Spartacus · 29 Oct 2018

BMIFlyer said:
1st class is on every TPE service.

I thought it would be the case, just never got around to checking. Let's hope nobody's bought a 1st Class season from any of the Northern shacks, eh?

I must admit, it's been quite useful making use of a local 185's 1st at weekends with my toddler, her being able to play with the armrests without potentially bothering anyone else.

Greybeard33 · 29 Oct 2018

Solent&Wessex said:
The main reason that Scarborough, Newcastle and Middlesbrough etc loose out (and also why the Hull services regularly get turned back at Stalybridge) is not really to do with the Castlefield corridor, but almost entirely to do with
a) the stupidly tight train and crew diagrams which see units have circa 10 minute turn rounds at each end of a 3hr journey, and drivers have diagrams which have things such as a 30 minute break in a 34 minute gap between trains meaning that even the slightest delay immediately knocks on to the next working and there is no chance to recover
(snip)
...adding 1 more unit at MIA will not solve a) at all.

Surely the planned increase in Airport turnround times, from 10 minutes to 40 minutes, will greatly help recovery from delays, and reduce the need for turnbacks at Victoria or Piccadilly? That will be achieved by interworking the Newcastle and Middlesbrough diagrams at the Airport, which will require adding one more 185 diagram.

Solent&Wessex · 29 Oct 2018

Greybeard33 said:
Surely the planned increase in Airport turnround times, from 10 minutes to 40 minutes, will greatly help recovery from delays, and reduce the need for turnbacks at Victoria or Piccadilly? That will be achieved by interworking the Newcastle and Middlesbrough diagrams at the Airport, which will require adding one more 185 diagram.

To a degree. But the Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Scarborough trains that get turned back short at Darlington, York, Malton or suchlike normally start their journey at Liverpool or Manchester on time, it's the delay they pick up on the way which causes them to get turned back short because of the tight turn rounds.

So far on this thread we've had suggestion that turn round times at MIA are increasing - which needs 1 extra unit. Splitting the stopper at Huddersfield - needs 1 extra unit. Increasing the turn round at Scarborough -needs one extra unit. That's 3 extra 185s needed.

Northern are not giving the 185s they use back yet so the use of 2 x 170s negates the need for 2 of the 185s, but there is still 1 more to find per day. But where from? They are stretched enough as it is. And that's before you even consider all the extra traincrew diagrams that are needed to go with the changes. As there are daily cancellations due to driver shortages and guards coverage relying heavily on overtime too, not to mention increased training requirements starting to go with the new rolling stock, then how on earth the increased requirement for units and crews can be covered in 5 weeks time remains to be seen.

Greybeard33 · 29 Oct 2018

Solent&Wessex said:
To a degree. But the Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Scarborough trains that get turned back short at Darlington, York, Malton or suchlike normally start their journey at Liverpool or Manchester on time, it's the delay they pick up on the way which causes them to get turned back short because of the tight turn rounds.

So far on this thread we've had suggestion that turn round times at MIA are increasing - which needs 1 extra unit. Splitting the stopper at Huddersfield - needs 1 extra unit. Increasing the turn round at Scarborough -needs one extra unit. That's 3 extra 185s needed.

Northern are not giving the 185s they use back yet so the use of 2 x 170s negates the need for 2 of the 185s, but there is still 1 more to find per day. But where from? They are stretched enough as it is. And that's before you even consider all the extra traincrew diagrams that are needed to go with the changes. As there are daily cancellations due to driver shortages and guards coverage relying heavily on overtime too, not to mention increased training requirements starting to go with the new rolling stock, then how on earth the increased requirement for units and crews can be covered in 5 weeks time remains to be seen.

I believe you yourself previously offered a partial answer to this question on the Timetable Change thread:

Solent&Wessex said:
Splitting the stopper at Huddersfield and increasing the turn round at MIA from 10 to 40 minutes increases the number of 185s required by 2. This was meant to be covered by the 185s returning from Northern. Northern are however not returning the 185s in time for December so the options are to reduce the number of peak hour 6 car formations or obtain some other stock from somewhere. The late arrival if the Mk5a and the slow progress on crew training will not be helping either.

I understand the plan for the 170s, if it happens, is to use Northern drivers and TPE Guards.

scarby · 30 Oct 2018

LittleAH said:
Talk about over reaction! Close the line, people working on the railway not caring? Be reasonable.

I must just stress I did not say that people working on the railway do not care. Maybe I should have not used the word "care" with reference to TPE, as with the term taken taken literally an organisation cannot "care" - only a person or people can do that.

nuneatonmark · 30 Oct 2018

I have taken the 1845 from York to Malton twice in the last 4 weeks. Both times the train was on time well past Manchester only to steadily build up delays after Stalybridge, through Leeds and onto York. The first time was only 15 minutes late so train went through to Scarborough, the second time, it was 23 late and turned at Malton. Both times were to my advantage as both times I connected at York off the 1704 from Chesterfield which on both occasions were only a couple of minutes late into Sheffield and both then got stuck behind a stopper resulting in 15-20 minute delays by the time we got to Leeds. Strange why a stopper is let in front of a regional express service when it's only a couple of mins late! By Wakefield I was missing my connection at York only then to see the Scarborough train eke away time so I fortunately made it in both cases.

LittleAH · 1 Nov 2018

scarby said:
I must just stress I did not say that people working on the railway do not care. Maybe I should have not used the word "care" with reference to TPE, as with the term taken taken literally an organisation cannot "care" - only a person or people can do that.

Again, how do you know this?

Are TPE actually responsible for the turning of trains at Malton? Or is it those in the control rooms?

Flyingsprinter · 1 Nov 2018

If TPE are subleasing 170s from Northern to use on the stoppers why don’t Northern just retake over the stoppers and use their own 170s? Why is TPE doing the stopper services anyway through Huddersfield? It’s not exactly ‘express’ is it? Just seems like no one has put any thought at all into anything. Which is typical.

Bungle965 · 1 Nov 2018

Another excellent display by TPE this evening at Manchester Victoria, 1P80 1455 Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport was terminated at Manchester Victoria with little notice, even the guard didn't have any idea. She simply guessed that it was due to the late running (we however weren't significant delay at that point). Came into the bay platform at Manchester and people were dashing over to the platform as they presumably thought that the train was still going to Manchester Piccadilly and the Airport, indeed it was still advertised on the departure boards as going to Manchester Piccadilly!
The next advised departure from Manchester Victoria to Piccadilly & the Airport was then sent via Guide Bridge!
TPE have sent some Customer Service people to Victoria to assist with passengers, however they always seem to disappear when things go wrong.
Sam

LittleAH · 2 Nov 2018

Flyingsprinter said:
If TPE are subleasing 170s from Northern to use on the stoppers why don’t Northern just retake over the stoppers and use their own 170s? Why is TPE doing the stopper services anyway through Huddersfield? It’s not exactly ‘express’ is it? Just seems like no one has put any thought at all into anything. Which is typical.

Wasn't it part of the franchise agreement?

More so, why are TPE subleasing 170's when they've got 2 185's with Northern!

TransPennine Express North Route, New Timetable

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member