Construction progress: TPE 350/4

[ainsworth74]

In all seriousness though, the point as I understand it of these units being built to the old spec was mainly for compatibility at LM but also so they'd work out the box and be easy for TPE. Not the case it would seem?

I wonder if some of this isn't down to Ardwick learning a new type of unit to maintain.

 

[Philip]

TPE could do with an extra three 350s on a permanent basis, it seems a bit silly putting 185s on Scottish routes at the weekends when the other routes themselves need more capacity. It may be beyond their control but TPE really should be looking to move away from having any DMUs working to Scotland now that it's fully wired. The Scotland services have already benefited from brand new stock with more coaches per train and an increased frequency, it's only fair that any extra 185s are prioritised to bolster capacity on the diesel routes. It annoyed me a bit the other week when a York service was cancelled from Manchester Airport because the 185 booked to work it was moved to a Scotland working (probably to cover for a failed 350).

(Don't know how the smilie found it's way onto this!)

 

[pemma]

TPE could do with an extra three 350s on a permanent basis, it seems a bit silly putting 185s on Scottish routes at the weekends when the other routes themselves need more capacity. It may be beyond their control but TPE really should be looking to move away from having any DMUs working to Scotland now that it's fully wired.

I think the problem is the previous DfT identified TPE as needing 40 extra carriages to allow them to enhance Scottish services and run 5tph on North TPE, that was based on predicted passenger levels which were out-of-date by the time the current government came to power. Also the 40 extra carriages delivered have been provided with shorter carriages than the existing trains in the TPE fleet.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Scottish services are definetley already struggling for capacity post strengthening between Preston and Manchester at least, cant speak for the rest of the route.

 

[Wolfie]

I think the problem is the previous DfT identified TPE as needing 40 extra carriages to allow them to enhance Scottish services and run 5tph on North TPE, that was based on predicted passenger levels which were out-of-date by the time the current government came to power. Also the 40 extra carriages delivered have been provided with shorter carriages than the existing trains in the TPE fleet.

You seem to have a flawed understanding of the cosntitutional arrangements of the UK and the role of different players within it. DfT is a Government Department which continues to operate (well technically it's role continues to be performed as Depts can and are reorganised) despite changes of Govts resulting from General Elections. Civil Servants in DfT make recommendations to Ministers (who definitely change as a result of elections) who take decisions.

The decision to buy 40 new carriages for TPE was based on the best available information and estimates. It seems, if what you say is correct (and I'm not doubting you, I just genuinely don't know), that those estimates have proven to be on the low side. This doubtless will not be the first or last time such a situation occurs sadly.

The reason that the new carriages are shorter than the old ones (well than some of the old ones actually as I understand that TPEs 170 carriages are the same length as 350 carriages) - albeit that they are formed in four as opposed to three carriage trains so there is a capacity gain - was pragmatism which meant an order could be placed quickly by piggy-backing on an extant option (hence the involvement of LM). I understand that the 350s are, in any event, an interim measure for certain routes currently covered by the TPE franchise and that the rolling stock to be used on those routes in the longer-term has yet to be determined. Such an approach, while perhaps sub-optimal, did result in new rolling stock appearing sooner rather than later wih TPE.

 

[thealexweb]

The Scottish services are definetley already struggling for capacity post strengthening between Preston and Manchester at least, cant speak for the rest of the route.

Really? In my experience of the via Wigan route is significantly quieter compared to the via Bolton route.

I think Bolton and Chorley commuters would appreciate if all Scottish services call at Wigan North Western, I know most do but some peak time do not, more commuters need to be pushed off the Southport services. Also why do some Scottish services miss out Manchester Oxford Road? Again I know its only a small number but every little helps.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The reason that the new carriages are shorter than the old ones (well than some of the old ones actually as I understand that TPEs 170 carriages are the same length as 350 carriages) - albeit that they are formed in four as opposed to three carriage trains so there is a capacity gain - was pragmatism which meant an order could be placed quickly by piggy-backing on an extant option (hence the involvement of LM). I understand that the 350s are, in any event, an interim measure for certain routes currently covered by the TPE franchise and that the rolling stock to be used on those routes in the longer-term has yet to be determined. Such an approach, while perhaps sub-optimal, did result in new rolling stock appearing sooner rather than later wih TPE.

The 350/3 and /4 orders utilised the outstanding options negotiated for the previous LM 350/2 order of 37 units.
It may not have been possible to order more vehicles (Siemens wanted to get on with the Thameslink order).
The split between LM and TPE was down to the DfT based on the business cases put up by the TOCs.

The fact that class 350 vehicles are shorter than 170s/185s is an accident.
SWT ordered the first Desiros (450s) as 4x20m units to suit their London suburban network.
But the final batch of these SWT units was diverted by the Strategic Rail Authority to Silverlink/Central to work out of Euston/Birmingham on the WCML, reconfigured for AC and classified as 350s.
LM then ordered more 350s, and the joint LM/TP order is more of the same.
Left to their own devices, Silverlink/Central/LM and TP would have ordered 23m vehicles for their better seat/cost ratio.

 

[Philip]

I think the problem is the previous DfT identified TPE as needing 40 extra carriages to allow them to enhance Scottish services and run 5tph on North TPE, that was based on predicted passenger levels which were out-of-date by the time the current government came to power. Also the 40 extra carriages delivered have been provided with shorter carriages than the existing trains in the TPE fleet.

It's more the current fleet diagramming arrangements which I'm not too impressed by. Monday to Thursday isn't a problem but it does seem a tad unfair taking 185s off the Blackpool and South and North TPE routes on Fridays to provide extra strengthening on the Scottish services, particularly when there is already an extra 350 booked in service to strengthen a couple of departures.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The 350/3 and /4 orders utilised the outstanding options negotiated for the previous LM 350/2 order of 37 units.
It may not have been possible to order more vehicles (Siemens wanted to get on with the Thameslink order).
The split between LM and TPE was down to the DfT based on the business cases put up by the TOCs.

The fact that class 350 vehicles are shorter than 170s/185s is an accident.
SWT ordered the first Desiros (450s) as 4x20m units to suit their London suburban network.
But the final batch of these SWT units was diverted by the Strategic Rail Authority to Silverlink/Central to work out of Euston/Birmingham on the WCML, reconfigured for AC and classified as 350s.
LM then ordered more 350s, and the joint LM/TP order is more of the same.
Left to their own devices, Silverlink/Central/LM and TP would have ordered 23m vehicles for their better seat/cost ratio.

For some journeys would they have been better off going for an AC version of the 444s (had the jigs not been got rid of)?

 

[Alfie1014]

For some journeys would they have been better off going for an AC version of the 444s (had the jigs not been got rid of)?

Well if they had of done, it would have had to have been a new design to meet current regs so they would be at least a year, or more likely more away from entering service!

Whoever operates the next TPE franchise will have the opportunity to procure an 'ideal' train for the route when they are appointed. That said I've travelled on 2 350/4s recently, including the 17:15 departure from Piccadilly in the peak and both were comfortable and the latter not overly crowded with only a handful of standees between Oxford Road and Preston.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

From what I've seen in another thread, no new 350s can be built to the current design so any new build would probably be 380s if 1/3 and 2/3 door pattern.

 

[Chris125]

The reason that the new carriages are shorter than the old ones (well than some of the old ones actually as I understand that TPEs 170 carriages are the same length as 350 carriages)

Actually the 170s are a 23m design, same as the 185s.

Chris

 

[IanXC]

I understand that the 350s are, in any event, an interim measure for certain routes currently covered by the TPE franchise and that the rolling stock to be used on those routes in the longer-term has yet to be determined. Such an approach, while perhaps sub-optimal, did result in new rolling stock appearing sooner rather than later wih TPE.

Can you provide a source for this claim?

 

[FOH]

Can you provide a source for this claim?

I thought it was common knowledge? I also believed they're there on borrowed time from London Midland pending TPE refranchising and a new fleet to take advantage of the electrified routes.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Say TPE decide to move away from Desiros, who will get them? Could they be converted to 450s without falling foul of the current crash regs (and goto SWT) or would LM get them?

 

[edwin_m]

Conversion to 450s shouldn't be a problem. The design must make provision for 3rd rail, being derived from the 450 originally, and the crashworthiness regulations won't kick in if an existing train is simply transferred to a new route.

However I think SWT is quite advanced with a new procurement and their must be a limit to how many units they can use. With the end of the franchise in sight and Crossrail 2 on the horizon it may be that SWT don't need any more at present, and when they do it would have to be specified for use on Crossrail 2.

The most logical thing would be for the TPE successor to procure a uniform fleet of EMUs, preferably 115mph if not 125, and for the 350/4s to join their cousins to LM to accommodate growth there. However it must be said that logic and rolling stock strategy do not always match (see Gatwick, IEP, etc ad nauseam).

 

[andyb2706]

I'm sure I've read an artilce in one of the railway magazines that states that the prospectus from the government for who ever the new franchisee is that they should be looking at new 110/125 electric stock and are going to be treating the franchise as an inter city route.....saying that could I throw into the ring the Hitachi IEP as a possible long term units? Design already done and operational by the time of the new franchise and the 6 car version would be a massive welcome compared to the current over crowded 3 car unit that operates between Manchester and Leeds.

 

[pemma]

Can you provide a source for this claim?

I thought it was common knowledge? I also believed they're there on borrowed time from London Midland pending TPE refranchising and a new fleet to take advantage of the electrified routes.

Tony Miles said that discussions had occurred with Siemens about how easy it would be to change the 350/4 layout to match the 350/3 layout, which suggests a possible transfer of 350/4s to LM in the future.

Also, there is the option for adding Liverpool portions to the Manchester Airport to Scotland services, with the service frequency changed so 2 out 3 services go to Edinburgh and 1 out of 3 to Glasgow. So if that goes ahead then the 350/4s won't stretch far enough, while 350s aren't compatible with other types of EMUs.

I think those two reasons are why people are saying the 350/4s are temporary. However, it doesn't guarantee anything if the options for Liverpool portions don't go ahead.

 

[sd0733]

In the unlikely situation that any 350s were ever transferred to SWT the 350/4s can go to LM with 10 350/1s move to SWT and have shoe gear reattached and there you have a 450 with a pantograph.

 

[Dunc108]

Tony Miles said that discussions had occurred with Siemens about how easy it would be to change the 350/4 layout to match the 350/3 layout, which suggests a possible transfer of 350/4s to LM in the future.

Also, there is the option for adding Liverpool portions to the Manchester Airport to Scotland services, with the service frequency changed so 2 out 3 services go to Edinburgh and 1 out of 3 to Glasgow. So if that goes ahead then the 350/4s won't stretch far enough, while 350s aren't compatible with other types of EMUs.

I think those two reasons are why people are saying the 350/4s are temporary. However, it doesn't guarantee anything if the options for Liverpool portions don't go ahead.

It would be interesting to see if Liverpool got an hourly Scottish service to combine with a Manchester portion at Wigan North Western, then every EMU service would be at least 8 coaches North of Wigan. Thereagain it could be just a handful from Liverpool, we'll have to see how it maps out, if it comes to fruition.

 

[edwin_m]

It would be interesting to see if Liverpool got an hourly Scottish service to combine with a Manchester portion at Wigan North Western, then every EMU service would be at least 8 coaches North of Wigan. Thereagain it could be just a handful from Liverpool, we'll have to see how it maps out, if it comes to fruition.

This is a good idea. However any train that has to run as an 8-car from Manchester would be a 12-car to Scotland, which might cause problems with platform length at Glasgow and perhaps Edinburgh too.

 

[Dunc108]

This is a good idea. However any train that has to run as an 8-car from Manchester would be a 12-car to Scotland, which might cause problems with platform length at Glasgow and perhaps Edinburgh too.

Oh, I was only thinking 4 car from Manchester, unless the 8 car from Manchester was one of the diagrams that didnt collect a Liverpool portion? ..

 

[pemma]

It would be interesting to see if Liverpool got an hourly Scottish service to combine with a Manchester portion at Wigan North Western, then every EMU service would be at least 8 coaches North of Wigan. Thereagain it could be just a handful from Liverpool, we'll have to see how it maps out, if it comes to fruition.

Idea is 2 hourly Liverpool service with a revised service pattern from Manchester Airport e.g. 08:00 Edinburgh, 09:00 Edinburgh, 10:00 Glasgow, 11:00 Edinburgh, 12:00 Edinburgh, 13:00 Glasgow. That will mean Preston gets around the same number of Edinburgh and Glasgow services and also Liverpool will have direct services to both Edinburgh and Glasgow even with a 2 hourly service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought it was common knowledge? I also believed they're there on borrowed time from London Midland pending TPE refranchising and a new fleet to take advantage of the electrified routes.

There is no contract.
A lot of water has to go under the bridge before TPE decides its fleet strategy for the new franchise.

 

[po8crg]

Idea is 2 hourly Liverpool service with a revised service pattern from Manchester Airport e.g. 08:00 Edinburgh, 09:00 Edinburgh, 10:00 Glasgow, 11:00 Edinburgh, 12:00 Edinburgh, 13:00 Glasgow. That will mean Preston gets around the same number of Edinburgh and Glasgow services and also Liverpool will have direct services to both Edinburgh and Glasgow even with a 2 hourly service.

The show-off approach (though they'd never do this) would be to have one four-coach leave Liverpool and one four-coach leave Manchester, combine at Wigan and then split again at Carstairs, to go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Obviously some passengers would have to change between the two halves of the train, so you'd want a longer stop somewhere to let them make that change. Perhaps at Carlisle, which is under cover (unlike, say, Oxenholme, Penrith or Carstairs) and not as busy as Preston or Wigan.

It would even allow for eight coaches to leave Manchester, and only the WCML stations would have to deal with a 12-coach arrival - and they all take Pendolinos that long anyway. (11x23 is longer than 12x20).

 

[Rhydgaled]

The show-off approach (though they'd never do this) would be to have one four-coach leave Liverpool and one four-coach leave Manchester, combine at Wigan and then split again at Carstairs, to go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Obviously some passengers would have to change between the two halves of the train, so you'd want a longer stop somewhere to let them make that change. Perhaps at Carlisle, which is under cover (unlike, say, Oxenholme, Penrith or Carstairs) and not as busy as Preston or Wigan.

If you are proposing such a service with 350/4s, then there are gangways between the units so most passengers will be able to get themselves into the right unit without alighting, while the train is still moving. Personally, I don't think portion working is a good idea unless there are gangways throughout the train to allows passengers to do that.

 

[edwin_m]

Liverpool/Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh split/join trains are a neat idea if the TOC can manage the passenger information side of things.

There were some that did this in the days of loco-hauled sets, and obviously easier and less time-consuming MUs with no need to attach/detach locos and shunt. I agree if this was done today through gangways would be essential but there would also have to be a long stop with assistance available to allow transfer by wheelchair passengers and anyone else unable to use the gangways with their luggage.

If this happens it might be a reason to keep the route with the Transpennine franchise, since that operator is likely to need similar units with through gangways on its other routes, whereas a West Coast successor would probably go for faster pointy-ended versions.

 

[fowler9]

Liverpool/Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh split/join trains are a neat idea if the TOC can manage the passenger information side of things.

There were some that did this in the days of loco-hauled sets, and obviously easier and less time-consuming MUs with no need to attach/detach locos and shunt. I agree if this was done today through gangways would be essential but there would also have to be a long stop with assistance available to allow transfer by wheelchair passengers and anyone else unable to use the gangways with their luggage.

If this happens it might be a reason to keep the route with the Transpennine franchise, since that operator is likely to need similar units with through gangways on its other routes, whereas a West Coast successor would probably go for faster pointy-ended versions.

Yeah but interesting to see that when the chips are down for the Tour De France the TOCs revert to loco hauled coaching stock.

 

[harz99]

Yeah but interesting to see that when the chips are down for the Tour De France the TOCs revert to loco hauled coaching stock.

No other choice though is there? The only suitable "spare" stock of any sort available is the remaining former BR InterCity Mk2/3 coaches and class 47 loco's that are fit for service (maybe a few additional preserved loco's as well).

 

[Rhydgaled]

No other choice though is there? The only suitable "spare" stock of any sort available is the remaining former BR InterCity Mk2/3 coaches and class 47 loco's that are fit for service (maybe a few additional preserved loco's as well).

Indeed, no other choice but maybe one which should be used more often given the day-to-day crowding on parts of TPE.