Recent Transpennine Express problems: What could be done to solve them?

CheshireCrusty · 21 Oct 2019

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...express-problems-whats-going-on.189899/page-9

I think the major problem is the number of TPE and Northern services which route through major cities like Manchester, Leeds and York as intermediate stops. Therefore a delay to an incoming service causes a knock on delay to not only the outgoing service (which might have been caught up in the dwell time for a terminating service anyway) but also delays to all the following inbound and their associated outbound services often daisy chaining to further delays/cancellations up the route (e.g. York to Scarborough).
XC has also suffered from this for many years.
I believe PICC platform 15/16 won't improve this problem substantially.
In the meantime I would suggest some or all of MIA North Transpennine services should return to using the bay platforms at Piccadilly.

RailUK Forums

Bevan Price · 21 Oct 2019

tpjm said:
Feels like you've missed my point. The base timetable does work. It's just that there is so little slack that one small delay causes a huge ricochet effect across the network. For example, all it takes is Northern's 1Yxx service to terminate at MIA 8+ minutes late to cause the outbound working (1Nxx) to get a delayed departure, which in turn causes the TPE Middlesbrough service to be late by the time it gets to MAN and therefore knock onto the rest of the network. Consider Northern's York - Leeds stopping service (set to be tweaked in Dec). This causes carnage if something is slightly late because the TT is so tightly timed and any slack has been taken up by more services.

There are many factually inaccurate claims made in that report. There is a serious capacity shortage between Liverpool and Manchester via Chat Moss at the moment which is making it very difficult to train crews on this section, hence the 'in service training' of Drivers and Conductors. It's not unheard of to cancel the odd service in order to run the first training courses, LNER did it between LDS and KGX for Azuma. There just simply isn't enough capacity on the network.

I would not agree that "the base timetable does work". Anything that can collapse due to a couple of minor delays "somewhere in England, Wales or Scotland" is not working properly in my opinion.

Trains in the Manchester area interact with trains from as far afield as Scotland, East Anglia, North East , North & South Wales, London, the West Country, etc. It can just take one or two of those to be late for the knock-on effects to cause chaos in the Manchester Piccadilly / Oxford Road / Castlefield / Ordsall Lane area.

LittleAH · 22 Oct 2019

Bevan Price said:
I would not agree that "the base timetable does work". Anything that can collapse due to a couple of minor delays "somewhere in England, Wales or Scotland" is not working properly in my opinion.

Trains in the Manchester area interact with trains from as far afield as Scotland, East Anglia, North East , North & South Wales, London, the West Country, etc. It can just take one or two of those to be late for the knock-on effects to cause chaos in the Manchester Piccadilly / Oxford Road / Castlefield / Ordsall Lane area.

Then again, this base timetable delivered TPE's first 3 days in the 90's+ of PPM this year and for the first time in a few years...

So it does work when the infrastructure works.

mike57 · 24 Oct 2019

Another dire week for northern TPE routes, plenty of cancellations and late running 14.45 from York to Scarborough cancelled as well as return trip at 16.47 from Scarborough due to train crew shortages.

The only solution I see to this is to make the financial penalty for this type of cancellation so severe that it is cheaper to have enough train crew on hand to cover for sickness, holidays, training etc.

91108 · 24 Oct 2019

I’ve read that TPE are possibly taking over the Liverpool - Nottingham route. How are the dft considering this when their performance on existing routes is so poor ?

LittleAH · 24 Oct 2019

91108 said:
I’ve read that TPE are possibly taking over the Liverpool - Nottingham route. How are the dft considering this when their performance on existing routes is so poor ?

1 - Performance is largely due to poor infrastructure
2 - TPE's cancellations currently are mainly down to driver training for their new stock
3 - DfT want the Liverpool - Norwich service split at Nottingham. TPE makes more sense to run it as they have they trains (185s) and are better located depot wise.

Grumpy Git · 24 Oct 2019

If parliament could be persuaded to move out of the Palace of Westminter (whilst £5+ billion is spent "doing it up") and move to a temporary home in Manchester, Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16 would be built before the first train of MP's heading north had left Euston.

mike57 · 24 Oct 2019

LittleAH said:
1 - Performance is largely due to poor infrastructure
2 - TPE's cancellations currently are mainly down to driver training for their new stock
3 - DfT want the Liverpool - Norwich service split at Nottingham. TPE makes more sense to run it as they have they trains (185s) and are better located depot wise.

I agree the infrastructure isn't good, but fewer longer trains would overcome a lot of the issues, as currently when something minor goes wrong the whole network (i.e. York - Manchester and the outlying destinations) rapidly descends into chaos because there are too many trains trying to use the route. This is an easy fix.

If TPE haven't provided enough staff to cover training then they should face penalties that ensure that it is cheaper to staff up to meet their obligation than to cancel services

If TPE were providing a good service then letting them run Nottingham - Liverpool might make sense, but:
What percentage of passengers travel over the proposed split in Nottingham, with the potential for missed connections, longer journey times etc.
2 x 2 car 158's into one 185 isn't going to fit, my only experiences of this service are Sheffield westwards, but they are always busy and often standing around Manchester.
185's cant take advantage of the differential line speeds between Sheffield and Manchester
TPE seem incapable of organising anything, if they cant do better on their core route then allowing them to take over another route would be madness

Finally as a passenger although I realise that not everything is TPE's fault but ultimately I am only interested in seeing the trains run to their published timetable, with sufficient capacity to cope with the passenger flow on a given route. The current buck passing culture just annoys me but the answer to that would be off topic in this thread

Dr Hoo · 24 Oct 2019

mike57 said:
I agree the infrastructure isn't good, but fewer longer trains would overcome a lot of the issues, as currently when something minor goes wrong the whole network (i.e. York - Manchester and the outlying destinations) rapidly descends into chaos because there are too many trains trying to use the route. This is an easy fix.

Noting that current plans (already well into implementation) will mean that most TPE trains will be five-car (plus loco in some cases) and that the overwhelming majority of the platforms used by them are less than 10-cars long please do flesh out your 'fix'.

tpjm · 24 Oct 2019

mike57 said:
I agree the infrastructure isn't good, but fewer longer trains would overcome a lot of the issues, as currently when something minor goes wrong the whole network (i.e. York - Manchester and the outlying destinations) rapidly descends into chaos because there are too many trains trying to use the route.

Whilst I agree with your comment about too many trains, too little track, your solution of 'longer trains' is impossible. Whilst your comments may work for Class 185, once the rest of the new stock is introduced, 83% of the services through Huddersfield will be 130 - 150m in length. If you have a read of the sectional [fictional] appendix, you'll note that these trains are already pushing it in most platforms. Add in the complexity of appropriate stand off from the signal at the end of the platform and then adjust the stop position +/- 10m to ensure the wheelchair ramp doesn't run into a lamp post and you've reached capacity. The correct answer to this problem is to change the infrastructure - lengthen all the platforms (considerably - not just 20m) and then four track strategic sections of the network.

TPE are also working to the TSR agreed at the start of the franchise. It was discussed during autumn last year about reducing the frequency in favour of increased capacity (to give the May TT some breathing room during the challenging Autumn period) and Rail North rejected the proposal.

BeHereNow · 24 Oct 2019

tpjm said:
Whilst I agree with your comment about too many trains, too little track, your solution of 'longer trains' is impossible. Whilst your comments may work for Class 185, once the rest of the new stock is introduced, 83% of the services through Huddersfield will be 130 - 150m in length. If you have a read of the sectional [fictional] appendix, you'll note that these trains are already pushing it in most platforms. Add in the complexity of appropriate stand off from the signal at the end of the platform and then adjust the stop position +/- 10m to ensure the wheelchair ramp doesn't run into a lamp post and you've reached capacity. The correct answer to this problem is to change the infrastructure - lengthen all the platforms (considerably - not just 20m) and then four track strategic sections of the network.

TPE are also working to the TSR agreed at the start of the franchise. It was discussed during autumn last year about reducing the frequency in favour of increased capacity (to give the May TT some breathing room during the challenging Autumn period) and Rail North rejected the proposal.

What was the proposal?

tpjm · 24 Oct 2019

BeHereNow said:
What was the proposal?

tpjm said:
It was discussed during autumn last year about reducing the frequency in favour of increased capacity (to give the May TT some breathing room during the challenging Autumn period) and Rail North rejected the proposal.

I.e. less frequent but longer trains

Grumpy Git · 24 Oct 2019

tpjm said:
I.e. less frequent but longer trains

= less train staff required (= bigger bonuses for the shareholders)?

LittleAH · 24 Oct 2019

mike57 said:
I agree the infrastructure isn't good, but fewer longer trains would overcome a lot of the issues, as currently when something minor goes wrong the whole network (i.e. York - Manchester and the outlying destinations) rapidly descends into chaos because there are too many trains trying to use the route. This is an easy fix.

If TPE haven't provided enough staff to cover training then they should face penalties that ensure that it is cheaper to staff up to meet their obligation than to cancel services

If TPE were providing a good service then letting them run Nottingham - Liverpool might make sense, but:
What percentage of passengers travel over the proposed split in Nottingham, with the potential for missed connections, longer journey times etc.
2 x 2 car 158's into one 185 isn't going to fit, my only experiences of this service are Sheffield westwards, but they are always busy and often standing around Manchester.
185's cant take advantage of the differential line speeds between Sheffield and Manchester
TPE seem incapable of organising anything, if they cant do better on their core route then allowing them to take over another route would be madness

Finally as a passenger although I realise that not everything is TPE's fault but ultimately I am only interested in seeing the trains run to their published timetable, with sufficient capacity to cope with the passenger flow on a given route. The current buck passing culture just annoys me but the answer to that would be off topic in this thread

It wouldn't though. You already have issues with TPE having to lock out the rear three coaches of 6 car 185's unless they have two conductors. ASDO is a bodge job because a lot of platforms need lengthening. Network Rail might point to the work they're doing, but even then it's not enough and I fear having gone through Greenfield a fair few times, they're only extending for 4 carriages even though they could easily extend to house 6.

Huddersfield, the station I use most, is pretty much at capacity for length of carriages too without a serious remodel with the new trains taking up all of platform 8 and platform 1 is about to lose some capacity as platform 2 is lengthened to accommodate more capacity on the Penistone line.

My friend who works in sustainable travel said it best when in comes to removing frequency of trains, he pointed out that all studies show that people are more likely to use public transport if it is fast and frequent. So 5 x 5 car trains an hour is more beneficial than 3 x 8 car. This is why we need long term investment and four tracking (where possible) between Manchester and York. TRU is hopefully that gamechanger, but as ever I fully expect this government to do it on the cheap, again.

TPE ultimately are at the behest of many false promises from the current government and the DfT. Platform 15/16 at Man Pic and the remodel of Oxford Road, the pausing of TRU etc. Always easy to blame to TOC, but 9 out of 10 times it is out of their control.

tpjm · 24 Oct 2019

Grumpy Git said:
= less train staff required (= bigger bonuses for the shareholders)?

Obviously not, given the fact that 6 car Cl 185s would require two conductors for several routes and any 'surplus' staff would be put to good use as spare, ready to take over should there be disruption, or used for route learning/refresher trips.

Drivers and Conductors aren't on zero hour contracts and if there was any money to be saved by TPE by enacting the described plan, it wouldn't be coming from human resource cost savings - it would be from the reduction in delay minutes/canx.

2L70 · 25 Oct 2019

tpjm said:
Obviously not, given the fact that 6 car Cl 185s would require two conductors for several routes.

Booked 6 cars have run with 1 Conductor since the start of the franchise, Liverpool - Manchester - Scarborough/Newcastle/Middlesbrough one example. With said Conductor expected to do revenue in both especially if there is a Manager on who reports them for not doing so...

Ben Bow · 25 Oct 2019

Buses vice trains from York to Scarborough and return again this afternoon due to more cancellations. No problem though, its "only" a Friday in half term holidays....

AndrewE · 25 Oct 2019

Dr Hoo said:
Noting that current plans (already well into implementation) will mean that most TPE trains will be five-car (plus loco in some cases) and that the overwhelming majority of the platforms used by them are less than 10-cars long please do flesh out your 'fix'.

But when? We currently have one or two loco-hauled trains and some class 802s running the circuits through Victoria, but no relief at all on the TPE services through Piccadilly that I have heard of yet, not even regular doubling up of the trains worked by their existing DMU stock.
I would be delighted to hear that this has started, especially as I have to use the service again early in November!

mike57 · 25 Oct 2019

Dr Hoo said:
Noting that current plans (already well into implementation) will mean that most TPE trains will be five-car (plus loco in some cases) and that the overwhelming majority of the platforms used by them are less than 10-cars long please do flesh out your 'fix'.

My thinking would be to revert to 4 tph express Leeds Man services. Make the Newcastle - Liverpool a 10 coach unit, calling at Durham, Darlington, (Northallerton maybe), York, Leeds, Huddersfield - see below, Manchester Vic & Liverpool Lime Street, I would think these stations except Huddersfield could take 10 coaches. This would then be a proper inter city service with no additional calls.

As for Huddersfield what would be involved in lengthening the platforms? possibly a quick and dirty solution, with prefabricated sections - or perhaps miss the Huddersfield stop, given a good path this would be popular with the long distance traveler. A lot of people now work some form of flexitime, and I suspect if there was a service which had seats available some regular travelers would adjust their travel time to take advantage.

Get rid of the other Liverpool service, which currently serves Scarborough, and reroute it to Manchester Airport, In general Man Airport trains tend to be rammed at peak times, while the Liverpool services tend to be less busy. This would then give 1 tph to Newcastle, Middlesborough, Scarborough, and Hull at the eastern end, with two Airport, one Liverpool and one Man Pic at the other end. One of the Airports to go direct to Man Pic and reverse, which would remove 1 tph from the Castlefield corridor. Stopping services can then be fitted around this. A very similar version to this timetable worked fine for several years prior to the disaster that was the May 2018 timetable change. The 4 tph would all be express services, only calling at York, Leeds, Huddersfield, Manchester.

The current timetable is obviously flawed as one minor incident sends the whole network into chaos, whilst infrastructure upgrades are needed, even with the political will to fund them and push them through they are going to take a number of years to deliver, and the problems need a solution now.

tpjm · 25 Oct 2019

Wow. I'd hate to live anywhere on the TPE route if the planners listened to your suggestion... oh wait - I do.

I'd hate to break it to you but a 10 car Class 802 wouldn't fit on MCV without hanging off the platform so not ideal to be using ASDO at a major station.

The proposals you make have already been discussed to death in another thread about the TPE May 18 TT.

AndrewE · 25 Oct 2019

tpjm said:
Wow. I'd hate to live anywhere on the TPE route if the planners listened to your suggestion... oh wait - I do.

I use it regularly, but nowadays I avoid it if I can

I'd hate to break it to you but a 10 car Class 802 wouldn't fit on MCV without hanging off the platform so not ideal to be using ASDO at a major station.

Well, ASDO works perfectly well on 11-coach Pendolinos at Haymarket every hour or two...

The proposals you make have already been discussed to death in another thread about the TPE May 18 TT.

Maybe.
It seems to be quite widely agreed that there are just too many trains through the Castlefield corridor (given the variety of train lengths, weights and door configurations.) The planned timetable might be OK in theory, but if you add in inexperienced passengers (i.e. not commuters,) grossly overcrowded trains and airport luggage etc., then it clearly needs revisiting.

tpjm · 26 Oct 2019

The point I make is that the timetable is NOT going to be rewritten to avoid the Ordsall Chord, and anybody who thinks that the DfT and Network Rail would agree to this is simply delusional. Manchester needs seismic changes in the Castlefield Corridor, not least Platform 15/16, but rethinking of key flat junctions. What we’re more likely to see is all services through this patch gaining a bit of extra dwell at the station before and some additional pathing allowances to try to encourage more services to:
A) present at the junction RT
B) have the capability to be delayed by 2/3 mins waiting for a late runner.

This thread is for discussing TPE performance issues, not rethinking the Castlefield corridor or timetable so I should probably leave it at that before going too OT.

BeHereNow · 27 Oct 2019

TPEs planned timetable had turnrounds of 15 mins at the Airport, 10 to 13 mins at Newcastle / Scarborough / Liverpool. To have those turnrounds at both ends of a 3 hour journey and then blame the infrastructure when it doesn’t work is complete nonsense.

Of course things go wrong on the railway and delays occur, that’s because it doesn’t operate like a train set in an aircraft hangar. Inadequate contingency is the responsibility of the operator.

Dec 2019 timetable seems to have solved this problem and it will be funny to note that when PPM jumps up, the infrastructure won’t have changed at all.

tpjm · 28 Oct 2019

BeHereNow said:
TPEs planned timetable had turnrounds of 15 mins at the Airport, 10 to 13 mins at Newcastle / Scarborough / Liverpool. To have those turnrounds at both ends of a 3 hour journey and then blame the infrastructure when it doesn’t work is complete nonsense.

Of course things go wrong on the railway and delays occur, that’s because it doesn’t operate like a train set in an aircraft hangar. Inadequate contingency is the responsibility of the operator.

Dec 2019 timetable seems to have solved this problem and it will be funny to note that when PPM jumps up, the infrastructure won’t have changed at all.

The number of trains required to deliver the train plan will though!

HSTEd · 28 Oct 2019

The reoccupation times at the Castlefield corridor don't seem that strenuous though.

I might conclude that what is needed is better signalling..... it's not like the RER where the next train is in view before the previous one has left the platform.

scarby · 29 Oct 2019

More absolutely dreadful service for Scarborough passengers this week:

Monday:

10.40 arrival CAN - terminated short at York.
11.40 dep therefore CAN
11.39 arrival 11L
12.42 arrival 15L
14.40 arrival 28L
15.40 arrival 11L
16.40 arrival 17L
17.39 arrival 18L
18.43 arrival 13L
19.44 arrival 11L, making 6 successive inbound services late
21.54 arrival, 7L (starts at York but still couldn't manage an on-time arrival)
22.35 arrival 19L

Today so far:
08.40 arrival 10L (this service rarely arrives on time, mind you, which ones do?)
09.40 arrival CAN
10.40 dep therefore CAN
10.40 arrival 12L
11.39 arrival 14L

This without even looking into the eventual fate of the departing services.

scarby · 7 Nov 2019

Since the 06.00 from Scarborough to Manchester Airport was introduced, in May 2018, I don't think I have ever noted it getting to Manchester Airport on time on a weekday. Ever.

Another shameful performer is the 05.56 from Liverpool to Scarborough, which hypothetically arrives at Scarborough at 08.40. Over the past week on weekdays, including today, it has been 23L, 19L, 28L, 19L, 14L.

Imagine if one relied on that service to travel from Malton into Scarborough for a job beginning at 9am. The previous arrival is at 7.12, so there is no good earlier alternative.

scarby · 12 Nov 2019

Another quite abysmal day for punctuality at Scarborough on Monday, with 13 arrivals 10 or more minutes late, plus a cancellation in the morning. Carrying on in the same vein today, no surprises there.

scarby · 19 Nov 2019

Just another day of cancellations and huge delays. Well, I'm sure it's not as if any customers have needed to get anywhere on time during the last 18 months.

scarby · 20 Nov 2019

Business leader's plea to solve 'shocking' rail service between Scarborough and York:

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.u...l-service-between-scarborough-and-york-919765

TransPennine Express has apologised for the inconvenience caused.

A spokesperson said: “The previous weekend saw a high number of areas flooded across our network which had a huge knock-on effect to our services. This, coupled with the accelerated training programme that we are temporarily running for our drivers and conductors as we prepare to roll out our new fleet over the coming weeks, meant that we had to cancel some services.”

And the explanation for the previous 18 months' constant delays and cancellations is?

Recent Transpennine Express problems: What could be done to solve them?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Guest

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Guest

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member