December 2018 timetable changes (some now confirmed scrapped) - contagion spreads

[Philip]

The TfN Train Service Planning paper confirms that TPE is only offering the split stopper (and the interworking at Manchester Airport) as a temporary expedient, ending at the December 2019 timetable change:

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Train-Service-Planning.pdf

Reading between the lines, this seems to imply a possible further major recast of the TPE North timetable in December 2019. And maybe retention of more 185s and renegotiation of the premium payments that the Franchise Agreement requires First Group to make over the remaining years of the franchise.

TPE may not be in a position to decide to keep more 185s than originally planned, if another operator has already made a deal for the 22 due to come off lease. There is the upgraded Hope Valley route to think about; this will probably need the remaining 22 185s as a minimum in order to provide enough capacity for passengers.

 

[Killingworth]

TPE may not be in a position to decide to keep more 185s than originally planned, if another operator has already made a deal for the 22 due to come off lease. There is the upgraded Hope Valley route to think about; this will probably need the remaining 22 185s as a minimum in order to provide enough capacity for passengers.

Hope Valley route won't be ready for use before December 2021 timetable changes. As far as I can tell funds are yet to be committed from CP6 and major civil engineering needs to be programmed over the drier summer months. Possessions can't be booked or contracts confirmed until that cash button is pressed. Visitors to the 3 rounds of consultations starting 3 or 4 years ago were told finance was confirmed in CP5, but was a red herring.

 

[Mollman]

If it's Northern 170s being talked about I suspect they'll be a lot of objections if Northern delay their own improvements (extra capacity, rolling stock modernisation and extra services) to help out another operator.

Remember the extra services aren't happening until May 19 now.

 

[geoffk]

TPE may not be in a position to decide to keep more 185s than originally planned, if another operator has already made a deal for the 22 due to come off lease. There is the upgraded Hope Valley route to think about; this will probably need the remaining 22 185s as a minimum in order to provide enough capacity for passengers.

Also TPE may take over the Liverpool - Nottingham part of the Norwich service. Won't they need 185s for that?

 

[pemma]

Remember the extra services aren't happening until May 19 now.

I know but there's many services which still have 2 cars booked when they were 4 car booked pre-May timetable change, so on some routes Northern need more carriages to put capacity back where it was a few months ago.

 

[pemma]

Also TPE may take over the Liverpool - Nottingham part of the Norwich service. Won't they need 185s for that?

Reportedly if that happens the mk5s are going on Liverpool-Nottingham with 185s returning to Middlesbrough and Scarborough services. I'm sure some will be wishing for Liverpool-Nottingham to not transfer so the mk5s don't get moved.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Reportedly if that happens the mk5s are going on Liverpool-Nottingham with 185s returning to Middlesbrough and Scarborough services. I'm sure some will be wishing for Liverpool-Nottingham to not transfer so the mk5s don't get moved.

More Mk5A sets would be ordered.

 

[js1000]

Also TPE may take over the Liverpool - Nottingham part of the Norwich service. Won't they need 185s for that?

Reportedly if that happens the mk5s are going on Liverpool-Nottingham with 185s returning to Middlesbrough and Scarborough services. I'm sure some will be wishing for Liverpool-Nottingham to not transfer so the mk5s don't get moved.

Seems daft to run end door Mk.5s through Piccadilly considering the dwell time problem with platforms 13/14 there. Double leaf doors on the 185s through Piccadilly would be a welcome upgrade on the existing EMT's 158s.

 

[Killingworth]

Reportedly if that happens the mk5s are going on Liverpool-Nottingham with 185s returning to Middlesbrough and Scarborough services. I'm sure some will be wishing for Liverpool-Nottingham to not transfer so the mk5s don't get moved.

TPE were hoping to run 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham to match the same on Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes. That was when remapping was expected by this year, then 2019, certainly not before 2020, and apparently now 2021 - if not later.

It's a moving picture of route allocations, leasing commitments, timetabling and who knows what else! HS2 electrification from Sheffield to Toton will be a further spanner to throw into the works when/if the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme eventually releases extra options.

 

[pemma]

TPE were hoping to run 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham to match the same on Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes. That was when remapping was expected by this year, then 2019, certainly not before 2020, and apparently now 2021 - if not later.

It's a moving picture of route allocations, leasing commitments, timetabling and who knows what else! HS2 electrification from Sheffield to Toton will be a further spanner to throw into the works when/if the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme eventually releases extra options.

So basically we've got three different options which are all supposed to be TPE's preferred option if they get Liverpool-Nottingham and it's not even certain they will take on Liverpool-Nottingham as DfT are also considering it becoming a Northern Connect route.

 

[Killingworth]

So basically we've got three different options which are all supposed to be TPE's preferred option if they get Liverpool-Nottingham and it's not even certain they will take on Liverpool-Nottingham as DfT are also considering it becoming a Northern Connect route.

But it could still stay with East Midlands indefinitely! Of course there's a rail review pending so the whole pack of cards could be thrown in the air and it's anyone's guess what might then emerge.

 

[Philip]

The 175s coming off lease may also be a contender for the additional Hope Valley services.

The Civity acceptance procedure seems to be dragging on a bit; still only five or six 195s now on Northern's books and seemingly some way off entering service yet. I wonder if we might see Northern operating 142s beyond the end of next year, since the plan was probably to have all 195s in service by the time they chucked out the 142s?

 

[Killingworth]

The 175s coming off lease may also be a contender for the additional Hope Valley services.

The Civity acceptance procedure seems to be dragging on a bit; still only five or six 195s now on Northern's books and seemingly some way off entering service yet. I wonder if we might see Northern operating 142s beyond the end of next year, since the plan was probably to have all 195s in service by the time they chucked out the 142s?

Ideally any stock for the fast Sheffield-Manchester services should be 4, 5 or 6 carriages, and with interconnection throughout the train. The current 185s are inadequate with 3 (especially when half of one coach is 1st), but 6 is excessive for most trains. As the DfT franchise includes provision of catering that must be a nightmare to provide at present!!

East Midlands 2 x 158s are more practical in that regard, and being lighter can utilise maximum line speeds where heavier 185s can't. They could also be extended to 3 walk through units if needed. This also helps to relieve overcrowding once a station is left and the load can be better distributed - but they don't have any 1st, something the DfT wants providing.

 

[pemma]

Ideally any stock for the fast Sheffield-Manchester services should be 4, 5 or 6 carriages, and with interconnection throughout the train. The current 185s are inadequate with 3 (especially when half of one coach is 1st), but 6 is excessive for most trains. As the DfT franchise includes provision of catering that must be a nightmare to provide at present!!

East Midlands 2 x 158s are more practical in that regard, and being lighter can utilise maximum line speeds where heavier 185s can't. They could also be extended to 3 walk through units if needed. This also helps to relieve overcrowding once a station is left and the load can be better distributed - but they don't have any 1st, something the DfT wants providing.

There isn't a massive difference in standard class seating capacity between 2 x 185s and 2 x 158s by the time 185s have a First Class section and wide double doors. When TPE operated 2 x 170s the trolley got moved between portions at stations, which lost the benefit of the wide double doors reducing dwell times. Obviously you could have two trolleys or rebuild the front of 185s to have connections but both those options will be pricey.

 

[Philip]

There isn't a massive difference in standard class seating capacity between 2 x 185s and 2 x 158s by the time 185s have a First Class section and wide double doors. When TPE operated 2 x 170s the trolley got moved between portions at stations, which lost the benefit of the wide double doors reducing dwell times. Obviously you could have two trolleys or rebuild the front of 185s to have connections but both those options will be pricey.

The ideal solution would be a follow-on order for the CAF units being built for the Welsh service, with the same layout and formation (2 and 3 car sets) and a small first class section in the 3 car sets.

 

[js1000]

The 175s coming off lease may also be a contender for the additional Hope Valley services.

The Civity acceptance procedure seems to be dragging on a bit; still only five or six 195s now on Northern's books and seemingly some way off entering service yet. I wonder if we might see Northern operating 142s beyond the end of next year, since the plan was probably to have all 195s in service by the time they chucked out the 142s?

The Northern franchise should be all right. CAF will step up production in Spain once they've cleared a rolling stock order for trains destined for Mexico. At the moment it takes them 8 days to produce one carriage but this will be reduced to 3 once the Mexico EMU order is complete and other production line is available.

 

[318266]

I've noticed that the new timetable for ScotRail doesn't contain any services stopping at IBM.

 

[Esker-pades]

I've noticed that the new timetable for ScotRail doesn't contain any services stopping at IBM.

These has to be at least one.

They haven't listed it as a station in the new timetables. I may get in touch with them.

 

[318266]

A quick check on RTT reveals otherwise.

 

[380gk]

It looks like IBM is being mothballed and will not be served.

 

[Esker-pades]

It looks like IBM is being mothballed and will not be served.

There has to be notice for that to happen.

 

[380gk]

Do you think ScotRail would stop serving it without the agreement of the Scottish gov or without consulting them?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

No mention of IBM at all in the new passenger booklets either, be it on the map, facilities table, or indeed the timetables themselves.

Esit - see this has already been said!

 

[Esker-pades]

The whole point of parliamentary services is because closing a station requires a long process of bureaucracy. If ScotRail doesn't provide a service (at least once per week) then they're in the wrong legally, surely? Or have I entirely missed the point?

 

[yorksrob]

Reportedly if that happens the mk5s are going on Liverpool-Nottingham with 185s returning to Middlesbrough and Scarborough services. I'm sure some will be wishing for Liverpool-Nottingham to not transfer so the mk5s don't get moved.

Or so the 158's don't get moved.

So if this transfer does happen, we'll be back to square 1 in terms of capacity on the North trans pennine route (although if rail travel in the North continues to decline as at present, we probably won't need any extra capacity anyway).

 

[380gk]

The whole point of parliamentary services is because closing a station requires a long process of bureaucracy. If ScotRail doesn't provide a service (at least once per week) then they're in the wrong legally, surely? Or have I entirely missed the point?

They can probably get away with it if they advise that people who want to use it can be provided with alternative transport via customer services (knowing that there’s no access to the station anyway and that they’re probably never going to get asked).

 

[Esker-pades]

They can probably get away with it if they advise that people who want to use it can be provided with alternative transport via customer services (knowing that there’s no access to the station anyway and that they’re probably never going to get asked).

There is access to the station.

 

[Mag_seven]

Re IBM - is there a different closure procedure in Scotland when compared to the rest of the UK?

 

[380gk]

There is access to the station.

As someone who goes past it regularly, I can assure you it is fenced off and the entrance and exit has been for a good while now.

 

[Esker-pades]

As someone who goes past it regularly, I can assure you it is fenced off and the entrance and exit has been for a good while now.

I managed to get from the station to the main road without climbing over any fences. I just walked along a path, through a car park and down a road. Has this fencing off occured since this May?