• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TPE 'Abysmal' Performance

Status
Not open for further replies.

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
You keep quoting 802's here but its the 801 that would replace (or could have been ordered in place of) 397's.
Why would you have a separate microfleet of 801s? Better to have a single fleet of 802s in this entirely hindsight based scenario - No need for a separate West Coast fleet at all. I don't recognise why one homogenous 802 fleet would be more expensive than two targeted 801 and 802 fleets; when the current state of affairs has proven that micro fleets for specific routes offer no benefits in terms of delivery time or staff training.
Yes, I agree - 801s rather then 802s. Probably less expensive to acquire and to run than 802s: no diesel engines & switchover mechanisms; reduced maintenance (less to maintain); quicker to train train crews and maintenance engineeers (less to train them on); less to go wrong/misbehave; cheaper to run (not lugging around a few tone of diesel equipment and fuel).
Given that the 397s are the equivalents of these hypothetical 801s, deploying a totally independent electric fleet doesn't seem to be working out so well thus far.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
I don't recognise why one homogenous 802 fleet would be more expensive than two targeted 801 and 802 fleets; when the current state of affairs has proven that micro fleets for specific routes offer no benefits in terms of delivery time or staff training.
Is it not obvious? They're more expensive because they have more diesel power packs. The power packs would be used approximately never on the route in question.
Given that the 397s are the equivalents of these hypothetical 801s, deploying a totally independent electric fleet doesn't seem to be working out so well thus far.
But back in 2013 when they did it, you weren't complaining then?
 
Last edited:

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,719
Location
North
Indeed. With hindsight only two types required. 801 for the WCML and 802 for those trundling across the Pennines' electrification desert.
Especially on the Redcars.
The 68/mark Vs will be the only passenger train over the 125mph ECML limited to 100mph as far as Thirsk which will mean being routed over the Slows at 80mph. 802s would be better here as they can use electric York to Northallerton (soon to be Church Fenton-Northallerton) and Man Vic-Airport and benefit from 125 running on the ECML.
Similarly with the Scarboroughs where Man Vic-Liverpool overheads can be used instead of diesel under the wires.
Order a further batch of 13 802s and cascade these 68s to South Trans Pennines where capacity is needed and line speeds are lower, in turn cascading 13 185s to Northern who are still short of 3-car DMUs.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,266
Location
Greater Manchester
It's not about 'saving money' really is it? Before May 18 TPE ran 6 cars at peak and didn't require two conductors as the stations served were long enough. South Route and Hull Route don't have the infrastructure to accommodate that. ASDO was the fix, but it failed badly (IMO introduced in too quickly) and the right decision was made to abandon that until it was full proof. For the time being some trains will have 3 cars locked out, especially as training continues for conductors meaning less are available. But to say its a money saving exercise - its a lazy argument.
Before May 2018 TPE ran some 6-car services on the Liverpool to Scarborough route via the CLC line. These called at Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington Central, which both have platforms that are only 5-car length. Did these trains carry two guards?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
Is it not obvious? They're more expensive because they have more diesel power packs. The power packs would be used approximately never on the route in question.
There's currently three new fleets with three different lease charges, three different track access costs and I assume three different maintenance contracts. As I'm not in receipt of all these figures, I'm not convinced that the current arrangement works out cheaper than a hypothetical all-802 fleet.

Daft I know, as such speculation will do nothing to counter TPE's outstanding issues, but I'm just continuing a line of thought started by other contributors to this thread.
But back in 2013 when they did it, you weren't complaining then?
No and to be fair I'm not complaining now: I'm just considering a collective line of reasoning that, with perfect hindsight, a homogenous fleet of 802s might have ultimately proven to be no more time consuming to deliver to service than the actual three new fleets we have.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
No and to be fair I'm not complaining now: I'm just considering a collective line of reasoning that, with perfect hindsight, a homogenous fleet of 802s might have ultimately proven to be no more time consuming to deliver to service than the actual three new fleets we have.
Perhaps that's even true. It doesn't sound terribly unlikely.

But the point I am consistently trying to make is that, when these matters were being looked on in the bid and in 2015 and 2016, subsequently to the award having been announced, the company could scarcely have made contracts which called for deliveries in the later part of 2020 and maybe in 2021, which is what they would have ended up with were the two other fleets combined into an all 802 order. Even if these had been complaint with DfT requirements at the time, they would have left the company well short of growth (and thus money) meantime. If the company had considered that you may well be right it would change nothing. Clearly it would also leave them (and thus the taxpayer, given the likelihood of the operation being returned to our financial purview before the current contract is due to end anyway) worse off in cash terms going into the future.

To put it another way, there's hindsight, and then there's also recognising that if you had your time again, you might sometimes not make different decisions!
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
Before May 2018 TPE ran some 6-car services on the Liverpool to Scarborough route via the CLC line. These called at Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington Central, which both have platforms that are only 5-car length. Did these trains carry two guards?
They did the same at Chinley and Dore. I think they might have had to have two conductors though?
 

hstmatt

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
231
Location
United Kingdom
Double-set Class 185s require two Conductors when locking out four or more doors due to short platforms. Any less than four and they only require one Conductor.
 

Phlip

Member
Joined
20 Apr 2011
Messages
103
During another overcrowded service I was on I witnessed my own brand of disgusting behaviour - two lads going to Newcastle purposely stood in the doorway to the first class section to keep the exit doors clear on a already congested service. They were then forceably shunted out the doorway to the first class section by the TPE host who politely told them they were not allowed to congregate where they were stood as they were standard class passengers! They then stepped into the already crowded foyer area of the carriage - the TPE host then shut the frosted doors into the first class section behind her. This seem to emphasise the point we were all cattle not worthy of the VIP area!

The geordie lads got their own back when a snooty looking toff in a business suite tried to come out of the first class section to wade through the sea of bodies to get to the toilet. The two geordie lads completely blocked his path and wouldn't move - they snarled at him like a couple of lions making him retreat back into first class holding his bladder. Nice bit of revenge to the Newcastle lads.

Wow. What had the poor passenger in the suit done to deserve that? Was it just that you/they didn't like the look of him?
 

HullRailMan

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2018
Messages
328
The Hull line has been doubly screwed over. Firstly, no new trains. That means 6 cars if we’re lucky, too often it’s just 3. Secondly, additional stops during peak time. That means you’re fighting for a seat at Manchester with people commuting to the villages between Manchester and Huddersfield. Or with people going to Cross Gates or Garforth from Leeds. It’s branded an ‘express’ but in reality is a local commuter train.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
Another problem that is common is that the gap between what TPE lead people to expect and what they actually provide is quite large.

For example, I was on a train recently one Saturday morning where I had to stand in the area around the toilet at the front, just from Piccadilly to Victoria for onward connection luckily. There was a group of about 12 ladies on their way to Newcastle for a party.

What I think people need to understand is, when they go online and pay a couple of hundred quid for a big group booking for Manchester to Newcastle, they're going to expect broadly the same sort of thing that Manchester to London passengers will expect. They will expect as the very minimum to be able to get them and all of their luggage onto the train, store it somewhere and then all sit down together in reserved seats for them. Bear in mind too that we're talking almost three hours here. They will also expect to be able to use the toilets and buy a cup of tea.

The previous train, the Redcar Central service, had been cancelled. Passengers had been advised to catch the Newcastle service as there wasn't a suitable alternative from Manchester Airport or Manchester Piccadilly. The train was formed of 3 coaches, and was running late. It hadn't had any reservations placed out, and it was already full of passengers from Manchester Airport. A huge crowd squashed in including me at Manchester Piccadilly, and I could hear the group of ladies having a big argument with the various different people who had come from Manchester Airport who were occupying their booked seats. The ladies were stood in the aisle holding their suitcases, with no space for them in any of the racks only only one or two had got to sit down, and spread out.

Unsurprisingly this caused a lot of conflict. Several of them got very angry and some were in tears. It was also very awkward for everyone else. A group of them came through to the driver's cab and started banging on the door and shouting 'hello'. It wasn't difficult to see why they were so unhappy at the prospect of most of them having to stand for almost 3 hours and not be able to sit together.

Of course, the driver was busy driving the train and couldn't help, so they eventually made an announcement asking them to stop banging on the door and to seek assistance from the guard at the other end of the train. It wasn't clear what was going to happen there because the train was so busy that the guard would have struggled to get through. The group would have had an alternative train from Manchester Victoria to Newcastle but they didn't get off, unsurprisingly as their tickets would have not been valid on an alternative train without permission (or even if they were, they thought they weren't).

It's hard to see how they could possibly have come away with an acceptable view of the company's services, and they were only very slightly delayed. Ironically they would have probably been better off financially if their train had been cancelled, because then at least they would have had a right to some compensation. Of course, most people here probably just treat that as normal for TPE, a lot of their staff seem to have internalised the idea that it's normal for customers to experience what they did, and by extension get quite annoyed when customers complain.

The lesson is that you must meet minimum expectation on 99% of journeys, with a clean on time train, seats reserved as booked, the booked formation and advertised catering service. It goes without saying that the temperature needs to be acceptable, there needs to be enough space to store bags and the toilets need to be in clean working order. If you get any one of these things wrong it doesn't matter how good anything else was or how much cash you spent leasing the train, you'll probably get a junk customer service score.
Back on the topic of TPE's performance, I fully agree with all of what you've said above. For regular passengers and staff there's an expectation of overcrowding, delays and cancellations that must come as quite a shock to the occasional passenger and does nothing to promote repeat custom for the railway. Though if experience at my own TOC is applicable here, as I strongly suspect it is, then the train crew and associated staff accept it only with a sense of weary resignation as there's little to nothing they can do about the situation. It's not fair that staff on the ground have to bear the brunt of the ill will and aggressive behaviour that inevitably arises from some passengers faced with the routine overcrowding, delays and disruption over a period of several years.

At least there is a growing glimmer of hope now as the new trains begin to enter service in numbers - I've got my fingers crossed that my next journey from Manchester to York next month will be on a class 802 unit.

There may be a bitter irony though if TPE North electrification is unpaused, in this era of increasing environmental responsibility, that just as TPE begin to get their house in order the passengers will be plunged into years of disruption to services at weekends at the very least as the electrification works take place.
But the point I am consistently trying to make is that, when these matters were being looked on in the bid and in 2015 and 2016, subsequently to the award having been announced, the company could scarcely have made contracts which called for deliveries in the later part of 2020 and maybe in 2021, which is what they would have ended up with were the two other fleets combined into an all 802 order. Even if these had been complaint with DfT requirements at the time, they would have left the company well short of growth (and thus money) meantime. If the company had considered that you may well be right it would change nothing. Clearly it would also leave them (and thus the taxpayer, given the likelihood of the operation being returned to our financial purview before the current contract is due to end anyway) worse off in cash terms going into the future.

To put it another way, there's hindsight, and then there's also recognising that if you had your time again, you might sometimes not make different decisions!
Yep, that I can entirely agree with.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
During another overcrowded service I was on I witnessed my own brand of disgusting behaviour - two lads going to Newcastle purposely stood in the doorway to the first class section to keep the exit doors clear on a already congested service. They were then forceably shunted out the doorway to the first class section by the TPE host who politely told them they were not allowed to congregate where they were stood as they were standard class passengers! They then stepped into the already crowded foyer area of the carriage - the TPE host then shut the frosted doors into the first class section behind her. This seem to emphasise the point we were all cattle not worthy of the VIP area!

The geordie lads got their own back when a snooty looking toff in a business suite tried to come out of the first class section to wade through the sea of bodies to get to the toilet. The two geordie lads completely blocked his path and wouldn't move - they snarled at him like a couple of lions making him retreat back into first class holding his bladder. Nice bit of revenge to the Newcastle lads.

This type of overcrowding must surely breach health & safety regulations and if disabled passengers want to get on at a station on the route they are surely snookered even boarding? Not good.

CJ
Aggression against total strangers essentially over the conditions of carriage is a clear indictment of the state of trans-pennine rail travel, and the lack of capacity certainly serves to generate such potential flash points. However such aggression can never be advocated and those two lads were entirely in the wrong.
 

Roger B

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2018
Messages
896
Location
Gatley
Why would you have a separate microfleet of 801s? Better to have a single fleet of 802s in this entirely hindsight based scenario - No need for a separate West Coast fleet at all. I don't recognise why one homogenous 802 fleet would be more expensive than two targeted 801 and 802 fleets; when the current state of affairs has proven that micro fleets for specific routes offer no benefits in terms of delivery time or staff training.

Given that the 397s are the equivalents of these hypothetical 801s, deploying a totally independent electric fleet doesn't seem to be working out so well thus far.
I suggest that much of the pain experienced by TPE introducing a 'totally independent electric fleet', stems from the fact that it's totally independent! Which would not have been the case had 801s been ordered.

There's surely a great deal more commonality between 801s and 802s than there is between 397s and 802s. That being the case, the time and cost for acceptance testing and mileage accumulation, crew and maintenance training, would have been be significantly less for 801s than it has been 397s. Also, from comments on other threads, the design/build quality and customer experience of Hitachi 800/801/802 trainsets are better than those for CAF builds - I anticipate MTIN and availability data for the Hitachi trainsets to be much better than those for the 397s, and that they will diverge further with age. Just take a look at how the 385s and 395s are doing now they're bedded-in - does anyone really expect CAF trains to come anywhere close?
 

dave59

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Messages
120
Why would you have a separate microfleet of 801s? Better to have a single fleet of 802s in this entirely hindsight based scenario - No need for a separate West Coast fleet at all. I don't recognise why one homogenous 802 fleet would be more expensive than two targeted 801 and 802 fleets; when the current state of affairs has proven that micro fleets for specific routes offer no benefits in terms of delivery time or staff training.

That would be to avoid needless dragging of diesel engines under the wires. If the TOC's on the northern WCML ever made use of the diversion routes then the 802's might make sense, but they always revert to buses.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
That would be to avoid needless dragging of diesel engines under the wires. If the TOC's on the northern WCML ever made use of the diversion routes then the 802's might make sense, but they always revert to buses.

It then comes down to a value judgement by TPE on if the savings from access charges and energy use are greater than the benefits of a uniform fleet. If it was all 802, then they might be able to remove one unit from their overall fleet with subsequent reduction on lease costs. Maintaining an 802 and 801 fleet means having more units for maintenance/redundancy
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
I must admit I do get a little bit annoyed with pedal cycles coming on congested services.

On a recent Northern service a lad with a bike got on at Halifax. There are actually designated bike slots in parts of the carriage where there are also fold down seats as well so that people can sit with their backs against the window.

One of the fold down seats was being occupied by an old boy with a stick who had to give up his seat so this lad could slot his bike in and stabilise the bike when the train was in motion. Another middle aged lady with a bag full of shopping also had to vacate her fold down seat as well. They had both sat there as the carriage was full. All three of them (and myself) where then stood until at least we got to Todmorden when most people got off the train.

It's hard to judge who is right & who is wrong here??? Should the kid be refused to board the service with a bike & equally should an older gentleman have to give up his seat to accommodate a push bike?

CJ
 

bengley

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,844
Northern have no policy against bringing bicycles on rush hour services. I think they should have such a policy, but until there is, the bike space is for bikes and should be vacated for bikes.
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
Northern have no policy against bringing bicycles on rush hour services. I think they should have such a policy, but until there is, the bike space is for bikes and should be vacated for bikes.

I do agree in some respects but I just thought it was unfair that a pensioner who wasn't too good on his legs had to give up his seat for a pedal cycle! The old boy had sat there as the carriage was already full.
 

bengley

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,844
I do agree in some respects but I just thought it was unfair that a pensioner who wasn't too good on his legs had to give up his seat for a pedal cycle! The old boy had sat there as the carriage was already full.
In that case, someone in a priority seat (if not being used by someone who needed it) should have given up their seat for him.
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
bengley

Unfortunately people in priority seats never budge sometimes. Like I said in my previous post - my pregnant step sister never gets a seat when she uses the Leeds service. I think alot of the problem is that many passengers (myself included) are completely oblivious to who is getting on & off at times if we are using I-pods or are half asleep. Again when some carriages are crammed to breaking point a priority seat user cannot always get up anyway if the aisles are all clogged up with a sea of bodies.

I actually gave up my seat once on a crowded service for a young woman with a pram as I was getting off at the next stop. As I got up, a student had sat in my place as quick as a flash - I don't think he could have been any quicker in my grave if he had tried!!!!!

There is no right or wrongs here it's just that train services I have been on have been bursting at the seams with passengers and it is impossible to implement common sense.
 

dave59

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Messages
120
It then comes down to a value judgement by TPE on if the savings from access charges and energy use are greater than the benefits of a uniform fleet. If it was all 802, then they might be able to remove one unit from their overall fleet with subsequent reduction on lease costs. Maintaining an 802 and 801 fleet means having more units for maintenance/redundancy

Plain wrong though. Of course wherever possible, the policy should be to preclude use (or installation) of diesel engines. The 350's are far from ideal but at least they are electric. Roll on the 397's to finally get rid of the 185's.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,539
Having a fleet shared across TPE also makes it harder to split up, for example if the WCML services were given to Avanti (bad idea IMO) or a Lancashire TOC (my pet plan!). One of the fleets would end up short.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
Though if experience at my own TOC is applicable here, as I strongly suspect it is, then the train crew and associated staff accept it only with a sense of weary resignation as there's little to nothing they can do about the situation.
I think that this is on the whole true yes. I should have put more emphasis on that too
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,810
It then comes down to a value judgement by TPE on if the savings from access charges and energy use are greater than the benefits of a uniform fleet. If it was all 802, then they might be able to remove one unit from their overall fleet with subsequent reduction on lease costs. Maintaining an 802 and 801 fleet means having more units for maintenance/redundancy

There is no need to have an all bi-mode fleet to allow one of the bi-mode units to cover a straight electric. Maintaining a 801 / 802 fleet does not involve having more units than having all 802s, there just needs to be the facility for the bi-mode to cover the electrics. 185s have covered any shortage in the 350 fleet since the 350s were introduced.

If your view was correct, LNER would have an all 800 fleet. The fleet is no larger with a mix of 800s and 801s than it would have needed to be with a fleet of 800s.
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
959
Location
The North
Can do but as quoted rarely do.

Which will change once all new trains are in, with peak time trains being 6 car as standard. You cannot expect any TOC to increase capacity on certain lines when the rolling stock isn't available currently.
 

tpjm

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
484
Location
The North
It's tricky enough through Leeds for TPE services. Even a 10 minute delay has repercussions on the other side of the Pennines. But through Manchester it's another dimension.

Northern's and TPE's punctuality problems partly stem from too many trains on a finite amount of track. This is partly the fault of the DfT and Transport for the North who are demanding more services but are unwilling to invest in the infrastructure to support this growth. At the same time Network Rail do not object and go along with a timetable that clearly has no resilience to offer a dependable service to retain existing passengers and encourage new ones.

But the TOCs are equally liable. Poor resourcing of units - single leaf end carriages through Manchester Oxford Road and Piccadilly? Really? And that's usually delayed while TPE get their catering trolley off/on their trains at Piccadilly. Delays through Manchester adversely impact on TPE services due to the dependence of Manchester Airport as the effective de facto terminus for their services.

Honestly think too many people in the railway industry are genuinely deluded and not up to the job if they cannot identify poor organisation and ridiculous practices (such as the trolley change at Piccadilly) which are allowed to still persist. Too many pen-pushers - all just point fingers at one another. Not good enough.

I keep noticing at the moment that TPE Airport services are being done over between York and Leeds. Often, Northern’s York - Leeds stopper gets regulated at York and is running 7L by Church Fenton. Instead of pulling it in and letting the TPE service past, it’s allowed to go first and call at Micklefield, East Garforth, Garforth, and Cross Gates, adding upwards of 10 minutes delay onto the TPE service. There’s no chance of recovering that on the rest of the journey due to the congested nature of the rest of the route.

Another one is when the other TPE airport service is running 5L out of York and a 2E Northern Hull/Selby-Leeds stopper is put out in front at Micklefield with the same calling pattern as before - cue a 14L arrival at Leeds from the TPE.

^ This is just one small section of the network where there clearly is not enough capacity for the services that Northern, TPE and XC are trying to run.

Also, I think you’d be surprised if you actually did some research into dwell minutes at MCO and MAN... given the chronic overcrowding of a 3 car Cl185, a 5 car Cl802 can often board faster through this area due to an increased number of doors and significantly less people trying to stand immediately inside the train due to a shortage of seats. “Trolley change” at Piccadilly will soon be a thing of the past. The Nova fleet do not have trolleys that come on and off.

TPE used to run 6 car 185s using something called UDB. Not being able to run on the Hull Route I can dispute that, been on a couple some years ago.
Now because their latest train working has failed it appears you need 2 guards to run a 6 car. The cost cutting being asking “will you come in to assist on this train to man airport and back” which they won’t do for cost saving reasons.

Well, a leopard doesn’t change its spots.
I see your comments in a number of threads about TPE and I have to say that most of the stuff you are spouting is complete nonsense.

UDB is Unit Door Block - it disables all the doors on a unit to prevent their release. It’s not an alternative solution to manually locking out doors or using C-ASDO.

TPE can and do run 6 car services on the Hull route, with and without 2 conductors. The current 6 car diagrams that stop at short platforms only have two conductors between Huddersfield and Manchester as the rest is entirely operable with one conductor.

And what short-term advantages might they be? TPE have trains that have been accepted as fit for service that are not in service because of insufficient number of trained staff. If they were introducing one new fleet instead of three, I suspect this would be less of a challenge. And they have quite a few trains still not yet accepted for service, particularly the 68+Mk5 combos that have been particularly problematic.

Given the protracted time taken to accept the fleet of 68+Mk5s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if all TPEs 802s will have been in service for quite a while before the last 68+Mk5 set is fit for service, during which a follow-up order could have been delivered (had it been placed before East Midland's).

And long-term disadvantages: ongoing costs of maintaining and operating four fleets instead of two, less-intensive stock utilisation, and what happens when they need to lengthen the trains (which could happen pretty quickly, if, as others have commented, demand has been throttled over recent years).

So it looks like short term pain and long-term pain to me. Time will tell.
The reason that the Nova 3 have not been fully introduced is because they were less of a priority to the train plan than Nova 1. The Liverpool - Edinburgh Route is entirely reliant on 125mph stock and would not have been able to be introduced from December 2019 if sufficient numbers of Cl802s were not in use. Given this is the biggest of the new fleets as well, they have the potential to provide the most transformation in the shortest time.

The Hull line has been doubly screwed over. Firstly, no new trains. That means 6 cars if we’re lucky, too often it’s just 3. Secondly, additional stops during peak time. That means you’re fighting for a seat at Manchester with people commuting to the villages between Manchester and Huddersfield. Or with people going to Cross Gates or Garforth from Leeds. It’s branded an ‘express’ but in reality is a local commuter train.
However, off-peak you now have a much faster service as the train no longer calls at Garforth, Dewsbury or Mossley.

Adding in the extra stops adds an additional 12 mins on the journey time to Manchester and causes the train to leave Manchester 5 mins earlier going the other way.

All of the services which pickup these calls are also supposed to run as 6-cars. You might not have seen it this week due to the storm and then two fatalities which caused significant unit displacement, but last night at Leeds all of the booked Hull/Piccadilly services ran as 6 cars.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,791
I keep noticing at the moment that TPE Airport services are being done over between York and Leeds. Often, Northern’s York - Leeds stopper gets regulated at York and is running 7L by Church Fenton. Instead of pulling it in and letting the TPE service past, it’s allowed to go first and call at Micklefield, East Garforth, Garforth, and Cross Gates, adding upwards of 10 minutes delay onto the TPE service. There’s no chance of recovering that on the rest of the journey due to the congested nature of the rest of the route.
The main reason Northern services are held at both Leeds and York is because they wait for delayed TPE services to run ahead. It might benefit your company for Northern’s services to be constantly shunted out of the way but if you ran your trains on time subsequent ones wouldn’t be delayed by delayed Northern services.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top