Confused by TPE Rolling stock strategy?

[Killingworth]

Desiro units on SWR have half cabs e.g. class 444, 450 etc. Allowing walk through. Is there any merit in converting the cab at one end only - to allow a 6 coach train rather than 2 x 3? Would allow units to be used in both 3 & 6 carriage formation

It certainly could help.

I remain concerned as to how they can robustly squeeze in longer 6 car trains at the Airport, and sometimes at Piccadilly. At present a 185 coming in from Cleethorpes operationally could be sent out again to Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough or Hull. With all the new stock types soon to be operated such interchangeability of stock won't be possible. Adding a Northern Liverpool Lime Street train in the same platform may be possible if they're only 2 coach units - but is that likely?.

 

[Chester1]

The May timetable indicates that the TPE Cleethorpes train will have to occupy Manchester Airport Platform 3 at the same time as the Northern Liverpool via Warrington (which arrives later and leaves earlier).

Double occupancy of Airport platforms is only permitted when both trains are 4-car or shorter, so it seems unlikely that you will see 6-cars in the Hope Valley anytime soon.

It's what I feared, although not all are going into 3 and some 6 coach trains are already running! Maybe detaching 3 at Piccadilly?

It certainly could help.

I remain concerned as to how they can robustly squeeze in longer 6 car trains at the Airport, and sometimes at Piccadilly. At present a 185 coming in from Cleethorpes operationally could be sent out again to Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough or Hull. With all the new stock types soon to be operated such interchangeability of stock won't be possible. Adding a Northern Liverpool Lime Street train in the same platform may be possible if they're only 2 coach units - but is that likely?.

Unfortunately I think the Liverpool-Airport Northern Connect service will be run by 2 coach 195s which is totally inadequate even with the CLC stoppers changing from double pacers to double 150s. The only plus side would be that they can share a platform with Mark Vs and 802s.

6 coach services between the Airport and Sheffield are not due until December. There needs to be a huge shake up of Airport services for the December timetable change. Its not viable to go back to the 10 minute turnarounds of May to December 2018 for North TPE services. I suspect TPE will get priority for paths and platform space to allow them to introduce the new stock on Airport-Middlesbrough and Airport-Newcastle services and 6 coach sets on south TPE. Northern would then have to do the best they can with what is left.

If Eversholt wins the IR tender then TPE will be forced to send units off lease from October on the exact dates specified in franchise agreement because they will need to be re-gauged by February 2020. That would mean losing 8 x 185s on 10th November and another 4 on 8th December. They would lose 22 out of 51 units by 1st April 2020.

In terms of pie in the sky ideas... Order more 802s to replace Mark Vs and reduce the 185 fleet down to the minimum allowed of 14. Mark Vs could be introduced in the short term but then send to Scotrail to replace 14 of the mini HSTs (with them granted 2-3 year PRM derogations). That would give TPE fleet of 12 x 397s, 14 x 185s and 41 x 802s.

 

[Greybeard33]

It certainly could help.

I remain concerned as to how they can robustly squeeze in longer 6 car trains at the Airport, and sometimes at Piccadilly. At present a 185 coming in from Cleethorpes operationally could be sent out again to Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough or Hull. With all the new stock types soon to be operated such interchangeability of stock won't be possible. Adding a Northern Liverpool Lime Street train in the same platform may be possible if they're only 2 coach units - but is that likely?.

The platforms at Manchester Airport are approximately 200m long and the signalling splits them in half. A 4-car train can come into the "B" half on top of another 4-car in the "A" half. But a 5-car train in the "A" half spills over the boundary and the "B" half cannot then be used, not even by a 2-car. So it was somewhat perverse of TPE to specify 5-car fixed formations for all of its new trains.

The May timetable perpetuates interworking of Middlesbrough and Newcastle services at the Airport to provide 40 minute turnarounds. This requires both services to be worked by 3-car 185s in order to leave enough platform space for all the other services.

The Glasgow/Edinburgh services get the whole of Platform 1 to themselves, so it would be possible to start introducing the 397s in place of the 350s before December.

 

[Class 170101]

Well, the westbound and eastbound services are generally booked into different platforms at Piccadilly and I doubt that the time allowed for the reversal would be sufficient to detach/attach a unit.

Platforms can, of course, be changed, but presumably TPE must have input the services into the timetable database as single 185s for them to be planned like this.

Would be surprised if TPE have enough units for 6 car working all day at the moment.

I think it was noted above, but if not, each portion could form a different service. However it doesn't look like it from May.

 

[Chester1]

The platforms at Manchester Airport are approximately 200m long and the signalling splits them in half. A 4-car train can come into the "B" half on top of another 4-car in the "A" half. But a 5-car train in the "A" half spills over the boundary and the "B" half cannot then be used, not even by a 2-car. So it was somewhat perverse of TPE to specify 5-car fixed formations for all of its new trains.

The May timetable perpetuates interworking of Middlesbrough and Newcastle services at the Airport to provide 40 minute turnarounds. This requires both services to be worked by 3-car 185s in order to leave enough platform space for all the other services.

The Glasgow/Edinburgh services get the whole of Platform 1 to themselves, so it would be possible to start introducing the 397s in place of the 350s before December.

That is even worse than I thought. 802s and Mark Vs can takeover Liverpool services during the next timetable period which will be a big capacity increase for north TPE. What do you think the solution for December will be? Will they go back to unreliable 10 minute turn arounds or do a recast of services?

If there was not an obsession with everywhere having a direct service to the airport then an obvious solution would be for Middlesbrough services to start and terminate at Piccadilly (via Guide Bridge) and for the stopper to run around the city centre to the airport instead (using single 185s). That would resolve the platform occupancy issue and avoid the inevitable increase in dwell times at Oxford Road and Piccadilly from using end door units.

 

[tbtc]

The 185s are not suitable for intercity services because they are too small and too expensive to run

Not the end of the world if they go to Ireland - there's no simple solutions to their fuel costs and inadequate size

Or do what every other operator has done and factored in time taken to deliver the fleet into the procurement...

Fair enough.

Just seems odd that TPE have had to go to three manufacturers to get around forty trains (a dozen 397s and nineteen 802s and fourteen loco hauled rakes)...

...whilst Northern managed to get over a hundred trains ordered from one manufacturer (195, 331), SWR are ordering ninety 701s from the one place, Greater Anglia are getting over a thousand carriages from just two manufacturers, London North Western/ West Midlands Trains are getting over eighty EMUs from the one manufacturer (730)...

...all of whom seem relaxed about procurement timescales....

...but TPE are following the herd - they are going for lots of little bespoke hand-crafted fleets of trains.

In some of the cases I've listed above, there was a need to get replacement trains urgently, e.g. Northern need the 195s to permit Pacers to be withdrawn in 2019, but TPE didn't have that urgency, so even less need for them to settle for a mixed bag of trains.

 

[Greybeard33]

That is even worse than I thought. 802s and Mark Vs can takeover Liverpool services during the next timetable period which will be a big capacity increase for north TPE. What do you think the solution for December will be? Will they go back to unreliable 10 minute turn arounds or do a recast of services?

If there was not an obsession with everywhere having a direct service to the airport then an obvious solution would be for Middlesbrough services to start and terminate at Piccadilly (via Guide Bridge) and for the stopper to run around the city centre to the airport instead (using single 185s). That would resolve the platform occupancy issue and avoid the inevitable increase in dwell times at Oxford Road and Piccadilly from using end door units.

I do not know what will happen in December. There is nothing in the public domain yet, except that the TPE track access application said that the temporary changes introduced in December 2018 (extended turnarounds and split stopper) will revert in December 2019. But I doubt that reintroduction of 10 minute turnarounds will really happen. It is still not unusual for services to arrive at the Airport 10 or more minutes late.

 

[randyrippley]

HST traction motors were sourced from both Brush and GEC.

wasn't that more to do with lack of production capacity at Brush resulting in a split order?

 

[43096]

wasn't that more to do with lack of production capacity at Brush resulting in a split order?

No, it wasn’t. The final batch (43153-198) were also supposed to get GEC motors, but were hastily altered to Brush motors as the issues with GEC motors became evident.

 

[sprinterguy]

.
Just seems odd that TPE have had to go to three manufacturers to get around forty trains (a dozen 397s and nineteen 802s and fourteen loco hauled rakes)...

Splitting hairs, but it's thirteen loco hauled sets. Not sure how this mythical fourteenth set has crept into this thread, though there will be a spare driving trailer and a couple of spare locos. Not to detract from the main point that Transpennine's piecemeal rolling stock strategy is indeed quite unorthodox!

 

[delt1c]

Desiro units on SWR have half cabs e.g. class 444, 450 etc. Allowing walk through. Is there any merit in converting the cab at one end only - to allow a 6 coach train rather than 2 x 3? Would allow units to be used in both 3 & 6 carriage formation

Memories of the 1st Gen Edinburgh / Glasgow DMU's designed way back in the 50's and proved to work.

 

[Philip]

Why not just terminate/start the Cleethorpes with 6 coaches from platform 10-12 at Manchester Piccadilly, if platform space at the Airport is needed? People don't have to use steps to cross to 13 for an Airport connection; they can use lifts or the esculator/travelator. It makes good sense once you take off the ''every large town/city in the north must have a direct Airport train" hat.

 

[Jonny]

The platforms at Manchester Airport are approximately 200m long and the signalling splits them in half. A 4-car train can come into the "B" half on top of another 4-car in the "A" half. But a 5-car train in the "A" half spills over the boundary and the "B" half cannot then be used, not even by a 2-car. So it was somewhat perverse of TPE to specify 5-car fixed formations for all of its new trains.

The May timetable perpetuates interworking of Middlesbrough and Newcastle services at the Airport to provide 40 minute turnarounds. This requires both services to be worked by 3-car 185s in order to leave enough platform space for all the other services.

The Glasgow/Edinburgh services get the whole of Platform 1 to themselves, so it would be possible to start introducing the 397s in place of the 350s before December.

Can the trains not even enter with permissive working using calling-on signals?

 

[Class 170101]

Sounds like it might have 'Lime Street Controls' to prevent an over length train entering the station.

 

[VT 390]

The interesting question is where will the 22 spare 185s end up? Getting a bit late in the day now considering they're due to start going off lease later this year. I would send them to Cross Country for the time being so that they can form some 6-coach formations on the Manchester-Bristol/Bournemouth route and so concentrate most of the 5-coach Voyagers on the North East-South West route.

I do not think the 185's would be suitable trains for this service because of the layout and their 100mph top speed. I do like the idea of moving them to Cross Country though but I think they would be better on either the Cardiff, Nottingham or Stansted Airport services.

 

[43096]

Splitting hairs, but it's thirteen loco hauled sets. Not sure how this mythical fourteenth set has crept into this thread, though there will be a spare driving trailer and a couple of spare locos. Not to detract from the main point that Transpennine's piecemeal rolling stock strategy is indeed quite unorthodox!

Also splitting hairs, they’ve gone to two manufacturers, not three, as the 397s and the loco hauled stock are both from CAF.

 

[Class455]

The interesting question is where will the 22 spare 185s end up? Getting a bit late in the day now considering they're due to start going off lease later this year. I would send them to Cross Country for the time being so that they can form some 6-coach formations on the Manchester-Bristol/Bournemouth route and so concentrate most of the 5-coach Voyagers on the North East-South West route.

I would have sent them to SWR to be used on their diesel routes as they'd have diesel units compatible with their existing Desiro fleet. I know that this won't make much of a difference but maintenance would be so much more easier given that there's a Siemens depot on SWR's network. Also since Northern already have 158's, surely the 159's would have been a good candidate to move there?

 

[43096]

I would have sent them to SWR to be used on their diesel routes as they'd have diesel units compatible with their existing Desiro fleet. I know that this won't make much of a difference but maintenance would be so much more easier given that there's a Siemens depot on SWR's network. Also since Northern already have 158's, surely the 159's would have been a good candidate to move there?

But SWR would then have a mixed diesel fleet as there are 30 159s and 10 158s with them, which 22 185s won’t replace. Adding in that 185s also have less capacity than a 159 and it just doesn’t work.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Another thing with these micro fleets is that they don't have much viability after they finish running the services they were built to run. If TPE are planning to use these new trains until they fall to pieces, that won't be an issue. But I honestly doubt that will happen.

The 802s wouldn't have an issue finding work post-TPE if such a situation came up, I don't think. The Mark 5As could probably end up on the WAG if they were surplus to requirements at TPE. But what would happen to the 397s? Who would be interested in what is, to be brutally honest, a small fleet of EMUs that aren't really useful anywhere else? What's not to say they could end up in a Class 373 or Class 332 situation years down the line? Who knows.

 

[tbtc]

Splitting hairs, but it's thirteen loco hauled sets. Not sure how this mythical fourteenth set has crept into this thread, though there will be a spare driving trailer and a couple of spare locos. Not to detract from the main point that Transpennine's piecemeal rolling stock strategy is indeed quite unorthodox!

Apologies

Why not just terminate/start the Cleethorpes with 6 coaches from platform 10-12 at Manchester Piccadilly, if platform space at the Airport is needed? People don't have to use steps to cross to 13 for an Airport connection; they can use lifts or the esculator/travelator. It makes good sense once you take off the ''every large town/city in the north must have a direct Airport train" hat.

Makes good sense to me - I'd rather use scarce DMUs where they are best needed, rather than running them under the wires to Manchester Airport (especially when that line is already congested with trains, and the average load at the Airport is about thirty five passengers).

I would have sent them to SWR to be used on their diesel routes as they'd have diesel units compatible with their existing Desiro fleet. I know that this won't make much of a difference but maintenance would be so much more easier given that there's a Siemens depot on SWR's network. Also since Northern already have 158's, surely the 159's would have been a good candidate to move there?

If you can give them forty 185s (to replace their current forty DMUs) then maybe, but TPE are only giving up around half that number.

Introducing 185s to SWR because they are kind of compatible with the existing Desiros won't help things when it means that the SWR DMU fleet are no longer compatible with each other (given the larger number of 158/159s).

Another thing with these micro fleets is that they don't have much viability after they finish running the services they were built to run

True.

185s might be good at crossing Pennine hills (and built for lots of passengers boarding/disembarking at various intermediate stations) but they are heavy/thirsty trains with relatively few seats (compared to 158/159s), so I'm not sure what routes they'll be suited for other than what they do now (but the Calder Valley routes are getting 195s, the S&C only requires about three DMUs, there certainly isn't a need for fifty one lardy 185s, which is why I'm fine with Ireland getting them).

But what would happen to the 397s? Who would be interested in what is, to be brutally honest, a small fleet of EMUs that aren't really useful anywhere else? What's not to say they could end up in a Class 373 or Class 332 situation years down the line? Who knows.

Interesting question - I know they are Civity EMUs but I don't know how similar they are to 331s - certainly no need for Northern to have any 125mph EMUs - but if there are only ever a dozen built (i.e. no follow on order) then... not a lot of homes for them (if HS2 means five coach EMUs become a waste of a path up the WCML). But I appreciate that I'm talking about the long term need for trains that aren't even in service yet!

 

[Class 170101]

I would have been tempted to give Northern some of the Class 185s and put the Class 195s on Newcastle to Carlisle and maybe the Settle and Carlisle if the route was capable of taking the Class 195s at Sprinter Speeds.

 

[whhistle]

Just seems odd that TPE have had to go to three manufacturers to get around forty trains (a dozen 397s and nineteen 802s and fourteen loco hauled rakes)...

Indeed!
I don't quite understand the rush for the new trains that having three different types of stock was the solution.

Especially with keeping some of the 185s, making that fleet even smaller!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It seems a great waste to be potentially sending 185s over to Ireland. TPE's overall rolling stock strategy is somewhat head-scratching to me, although it is a situation not helped by the original short-sightedness in the specification of the 185s when they were originally ordered. I don't see why there was such a massive rush to buy new trains that they insisted on going for 3 microsfleets, really - with a modification to add cab end doors, doubled-up 6-car services would have presented a sustainable long-term solution avoiding double crewing and/or inconvenience for passengers.

Ultimately, perhaps the breathing space offered by them soon being off-lease will allow for this. But, with them being in private hands, the lessor won't be interested in what the best use of the units is for passengers, they will be interested in what the option is that earns them the most, or minimises their losses. I rather fear that will be exportation to Ireland.

Use on the Nottingham-Liverpool services, or CrossCountry 170 services, seems like a reasonable proposal, offering an increase in performance and passenger comfort for both. Then again, which decision maker has ever cared about the latter?

 

[quantinghome]

If they're designed for hills, why not use them on Settle-Carlisle? Personally I'd like to see a new Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service, which they'd presumably be well suited for given they used to work Carlisle-Glasgow.

 

[Chester1]

If they're designed for hills, why not use them on Settle-Carlisle? Personally I'd like to see a new Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service, which they'd presumably be well suited for given they used to work Carlisle-Glasgow.

In one word - cost. 195 (and variants) are much cheaper therefore are the long term solution for routes that 185s could run on. It looks like 20 will be going to Ireland regardless of what the DfT and TPE want.

 

[Jonny]

Indeed!
I don't quite understand the rush for the new trains that having three different types of stock was the solution.

Especially with keeping some of the 185s, making that fleet even smaller!

Perhaps because it was the fastest way to get the stock - and a rival bidder had a different plan for the Class 68s. Remember that the Mk5As were supposed to be here by now.

It seems a great waste to be potentially sending 185s over to Ireland. TPE's overall rolling stock strategy is somewhat head-scratching to me, although it is a situation not helped by the original short-sightedness in the specification of the 185s when they were originally ordered. I don't see why there was such a massive rush to buy new trains that they insisted on going for 3 microsfleets, really - with a modification to add cab end doors, doubled-up 6-car services would have presented a sustainable long-term solution avoiding double crewing and/or inconvenience for passengers.

Ultimately, perhaps the breathing space offered by them soon being off-lease will allow for this. But, with them being in private hands, the lessor won't be interested in what the best use of the units is for passengers, they will be interested in what the option is that earns them the most, or minimises their losses. I rather fear that will be exportation to Ireland.

Use on the Nottingham-Liverpool services, or CrossCountry 170 services, seems like a reasonable proposal, offering an increase in performance and passenger comfort for both. Then again, which decision maker has ever cared about the latter?

It's hardly ideal, but the 185s are neither here nor there for seating capacity and are an example of how built-to-spec. can go wrong as they are quite heavy and fuel inefficient. OK the down-force is useful for maintaining traction on on steep (by railway standards) hills, but there aren't many of those.

 

[Jonny]

In one word - cost. 195 (and variants) are much cheaper therefore are the long term solution for routes that 185s could run on. It looks like 20 will be going to Ireland regardless of what the DfT and TPE want.

Also the lack of MU speed limit concessions. All the 185s get is the same as loco-hauled passenger stock.

 

[bengley]

Why not just terminate/start the Cleethorpes with 6 coaches from platform 10-12 at Manchester Piccadilly, if platform space at the Airport is needed? People don't have to use steps to cross to 13 for an Airport connection; they can use lifts or the esculator/travelator. It makes good sense once you take off the ''every large town/city in the north must have a direct Airport train" hat.

Would have to be 10. 11 and 12 do not fit 6 coaches.

 

[Chester1]

Also the lack of MU speed limit concessions. All the 185s get is the same as loco-hauled passenger stock.

I don't get the keeness of many members to keep them in the UK long term. Its annoying that some will leave within the next year but its easy to see why no ToC wants them long term. In Ireland they will be used for long distance services into Dublin where their EMU level acceleration and layout will be suitable. Ireland has also banned new build DMUs so IR has fewer options. Ideally they would stay in the UK for another couple of years but not any longer.

It will be interesting to see if TPE uses the clause in the franchise to replace another 15 x 185s. That would leave 14 units which would run the stopper and South TPE (doubled up between Airport and Sheffield). Piccadilly-Hull would need new stock. Hitachi will be desperate for work for Newton Aycliffe soon so might be able to offer a good price for 7 or 8 x 802s (which are probably cheaper to run than two 185s).

 

[Philip]

Would have to be 10. 11 and 12 do not fit 6 coaches.

I guess the Buxton and Chester services could utilize 11 and 12, with the Cleethorpes on 10.

Is it known which 185s are going to Ireland yet and will their FC be retained?