Although I would argue that Newcastle to Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool is a long distance intercity journey, it is dominated by the regional intercity and commuter journeys in to Manchester & Leeds. Therefore an intercity layout with doors at thirds, much as it is with the 185s today, would be better. It could still be capable of 125 mph though.
No idea personally but I’m sure my colleagues at TPE will get it all fully costed and learn from any past mistakes by other companies (they already have bi-mode experience with the 802’s remember).
Yes, and the reason is clear. Putting up wires at terminal stations would be a job for Network Rail, which is government-owned, so the government would be paying and carrying the risk if the cost over-runs (as it sometimes does with Network Rail). Whereas when procuring bi-modes, or tri-modes, or quad-modes, the risk is with the train operator, so Network Rail always prefers to do as little as possible, and pass the risk elsewhere. If we had a proper vertically-integrated railway we would not have these silly, complex technical solutions. We'd be getting on with the rolling programme of electrification.
Of course, with TPE being OLR it is also government owned...
Beyond this, in a world of wide intercarriage gangways, doors at quarters allows a pretty even distribution of doors down the length of the train.
If possible that's what I would go for on a regional express version of a class 397
Not necessarily. You could put new (battery) EMUs on the Newcastle route then use the existing 802s for Saltburn and Scarborough.
They’d be GBR units by that point so a transfer to Open Access seems unlikely. CAF units coming for the ECML too, so the two likely cascades for the 802s would be Manchester-Saltburn/Scarborough or to the GWML.Or send them to another 80x operator who needs capacity - I'd imagine Lumo for instance would consider making an offer even if it meant removing the engines to give them their electric credentials, or perhaps GWR or LNER could use a few. Or even Hull/Grand Central.
It strikes me that splitting TPE into a proper InterCity service (Liverpool-Newcastle twice an hour, probably fewer stops than now, new long EMUs) and a regional service as part of son-of-Northern (everything else pretty much*) would make sense and could well happen under son-of-BR assuming Labour do that as intended. Which I suppose does take you back to end doors!
* Or actually maybe a Liverpool-Nottingham IR would make sense too, which might work for the 802s.
I'd argue TPE's WCML services are long distance.
'Don't know much 'bout Geography. Does the Newcastle route mean less time away from the wires?
Once the TRU is completed, the entire Liverpool-Newcastle service would run under the wires.
Runs on the ECML so already wired. It would literally just be whatever sections of York-Manchester that remained unwired that the units would be away from the wires.
Would there be a gap left after the current electrification projects complete?
The problem with this is also that 6tph doesn't allow paths for the stoppers, so the Inter City services end up making local stops between Manchester and Huddersfield, which is less than ideal as rolling stock needs are totally different. Timetable also collapses into chaos throughout the region in the event of any even minor disruption. 4tph 'TPE' services between Leeds and Manchester should be sufficent as long as the trains are long enough, ideally as long as current infrastructure at the Inter City stops can support. Then serve the intermediate stations with a proper stopping service using appropriate rolling stock.
I'd argue that TPE's WCML services would be more efficiently resourced as part of the long-distance operator with which they share almost all of their route.
Its CAF.In notes to todays Government announcemen on £3.9bn for Transpennine routes is
Are these definite, and if so what type
Service announcement: £3.9 billion boost for more reliable train journeys in the North
Passengers will benefit from a fully-electrified line, accessible stations and more frequent services.www.gov.uk
And your source for that is...?
I should have been clear that I was meaning 6 tph after TRU has been completed, roughly at the same time these new trains should be in use. That would allow 4 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers through the core. Also assuming the 2 stoppers would be with Northern by that point too.
Stock like the 801 could be used where a small diesel engine is onboard for depot movements and in the case of a diversion and/or emergency. Could also be done with a battery.
How is the ideal rolling stock different between the two stopping patterns though?
A further thought, that post TRU 4 fast tph between Leeds & Manchester (with a single call at Huddersfield) will be enough. It’s just that they will be supplemented with 2 semi-fast (assuming calling at Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Stalybridge) and 2 stoppers.
Maybe similar 'under the hood', but 'Inter City' rolling stock should be suitable for longer journeys, probably end doors, provision of first class, more luggage space, seat reservation hardware. Units long enough to ensure plenty of capacity, possibly ~7 car units depending upon coach length, 125 mph capable for the York Newcastle leg. Local services will need doors at 1/3rds, no first class, and unit length will be constrained by platform length at the smaller stops Top speed 100mph, maybe 110mph. In a sensible world you would probably use a common platform, with different gearing and body shell fit out. Common systems and controls to reduce training requirements.
