Invitation to tender for the next Northern franchise

[Nym]

How about these for further Northern routes for 185s?
Leeds-Nottingham
Leeds-Carlisle

Sounds good...

Also with regards to the Buxton thing, if they where running express to Hazel Grove then 3 carriages would proberbly be sufficent for the service, freeing enough for the S&C and LDS - NOT.

Oh, and the Turbostars would be going down to EMT (or up to Scotrail in lieu of some 158s for EMT) allong with some more 158s to take over TPE South to hold up 4 car services through the hope valley.

 

[IanXC]

All that my point was to make, not forgetting the second part of my posting that you chose to ignore in the quote you showed, was how all of these future matters could be taken into consideration when new franchises were eventually granted by the the body concerned with this.

Ah, I would be astounded if the DfT did not consider how these projects impact on the pros and cons of various franchise mapping options.

I read your first (epic) sentence as implying that you had concerns that my proposal for a remapping was inconsistent with extracting maximum benefits from these infrastructure projects.

(There was no second sentence when I quoted your post, and in any case I have no idea whether PTEs have had such conversations so would have no reason to quote or comment on it.)

 

[WatcherZero]

Im willing to bet on the following:

* Northern and TPE merged
* Scotland services given over to Virgin, 350's returned to London Midland and additional stock similar to eVoyagers ordered by Virgin as a replacement. New franchise will order some additional short electric stock to replace 185's on inter-regional services that would be similar in size and capacity to 350's.
* New Toc will use the planned cascaded rolling stock but as 2020 approaches will place an order for new stock to replace the older electrics and pacers with sprinters being refurbished before themselves being replaced near the end of the franchise.
* A core franchise will be specified but a consortium of PTEs will have a budget to commission extra services or strengthenings.
* New franchise will be expected to set up a station/network improvement fund investing x amount a year initially in station improvement (particulary access) and later increasing capacity.
* Willing PTE's may take over responsibility for managing stations.
* Initially Franchise would have a very low premium to allow investment in rolling stock. This might continue with an expectation that capacity needs must be met without Dft assistance.

 

[tbtc]

* Scotland services given over to Virgin, 350's returned to London Midland and additional stock similar to eVoyagers ordered by Virgin as a replacement

If the Scottish services go to the West Coast franchise then would it make sense for the (current) London Midland Birmingham - Liverpool services to move to West Coast too (to create a "critical mass" of similar EMUs)?

Maybe even take over some Birmingham - Manchester services too?

 

[IanXC]

* Northern and TPE merged

I dont think this would be wise. Theres so much change planned, and with rolling stock too, I think management of a single northern TOC would be too thinly spread. Better to have 2 separate franchises (East and West) who can keep a closer handle on change in their area.

* Initially Franchise would have a very low premium to allow investment in rolling stock. This might continue with an expectation that capacity needs must be met without Dft assistance.

I hope this is the case! Perhaps with other TOCs like LM moving towards higher premiums (now that they're struggling to justify any more new stock!) the DfT will be able to stomach franchises in the North paying less and getting new stock!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'd doubt that NT will get 2 extra years.

What evidence do you have to support that doubt?
I'm assuming you're aware of the Department's procurement intentions, as announced 8 months ago

or are you?

 

[HYPODERMIC]

Im willing to bet on the following:
* Scotland services given over to Virgin, 350's returned to London Midland and additional stock similar to eVoyagers ordered by Virgin as a replacement. New franchise will order some additional short electric stock to replace 185's on inter-regional services that would be similar in size and capacity to 350's.

This strikes me as extremely optimistic. I can just about see the Manchester-Scotland route being split-off into to another franchise - ICXC or ICWC - but I'd be extremely surprised if we saw any new InterCity-class rolling stock anytime soon.

With TPE already procuring new stock for their MAN-EDB/GLC operations - and announcing that it will be fitted with an "InterCity-style interior" - I can't imagine that the Government, or the new franchisee, would be at all keen to shell out for all-new electro-Voyagers (or the like) for the sake of one line.

Don't get me wrong, I dearly hope you're right. If ever there was an InterCity route befitting of Voyagers, this is it. I just can't see anyone stumping up so soon after new stock had already been purchased for the line.

 

[IanXC]

This strikes me as extremely optimistic. I can just about see the Manchester-Scotland route being split-off into to another franchise - ICXC or ICWC - but I'd be extremely surprised if we saw any new InterCity-class rolling stock anytime soon.

With TPE already procuring new stock for their MAN-EDB/GLC operations - and announcing that it will be fitted with an "InterCity-style interior" - I can't imagine that the Government, or the new franchisee, would be at all keen to shell out for all-new electro-Voyagers (or the like) for the sake of one line.

Don't get me wrong, I dearly hope you're right. If ever there was an InterCity route befitting of Voyagers, this is it. I just can't see anyone stumping up so soon after new stock had already been purchased for the line.

The 350/4s have definitely been described as an interim solution - whether that be 5 years or 15 doesn't seem to be clear. As I understand it they will be on a temporary novation from LM to TPE, so in principle they ought to return to LM at some point.

 

[142094]

Do 185s not have SDO? The early morning NCL - LIV that stops at Thirsk is too long for the platform as it is doubled up but both units are in use.

 

[ukrob]

They have UDS, not SDO as far as I am aware.

 

[markydh]

Do 185s not have SDO? The early morning NCL - LIV that stops at Thirsk is too long for the platform as it is doubled up but both units are in use.

Is it? I could have sworn it's a single unit that is tagged onto an ex-Scarborough service at York....

 

[pemma]

Manchester Piccadilly - Buxton 2tph (Very peak dependant, 6 car in the peaks, 3 car outside, running on the fasts off piccadilly, limited stop to Hazel Grove) (8dia on peak, 4dia off peak, this allows off peak maintenance things)

I do think at peak times Buxton-Manchester needs either a 4 car working every 20 minutes or a 6 car working every 30 minutes. The 3rd path could be obtained by extending a Hazel Grove service back to Buxton.

Off-Peak 3 cars every half hour would be overkill. Some of the off-peak services have less than 50 passengers on board so even if we assume a passenger increase of 50% that would work out at around 12 passengers per carriage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm willing to bet on the following:

* Northern and TPE merged
* Scotland services given over to Virgin, 350's returned to London Midland and additional stock similar to voyagers ordered by Virgin as a replacement. New franchise will order some additional short electric stock to replace 185's on inter-regional services that would be similar in size and capacity to 350's.
* New Toc will use the planned cascaded rolling stock but as 2020 approaches will place an order for new stock to replace the older electrics and pacers with sprinters being refurbished before themselves being replaced near the end of the franchise.
* A core franchise will be specified but a consortium of PTEs will have a budget to commission extra services or strengthening.
* New franchise will be expected to set up a station/network improvement fund investing x amount a year initially in station improvement (particularly access) and later increasing capacity.
* Willing PTE's may take over responsibility for managing stations.
* Initially Franchise would have a very low premium to allow investment in rolling stock. This might continue with an expectation that capacity needs must be met without Dft assistance.

I feel that I totally agree with these points that you have made, which does echo the earlier posting that I made with regard to a PTE consortium involvement. A single cross-Pennine franchise would surely be able to obtain the benefits that would accrue from the electrification proposals that were recently announced between Manchester and York by the Government. It would be folly to revert to the idea of different franchises for either side of the Pennines.

 

[142094]

Is it? I could have sworn it's a single unit that is tagged onto an ex-Scarborough service at York....

The last time I was on it, it was 2x 185s all the way. Might have changed now.

 

[markydh]

Just checked the timetable and it seems you are right. It certainly always used to be the case the the Newcastle and Scarborough services joined at York but the latter now runs to Manchester Airport with the Newcastle having a 10 minute wait at York.

 

[sprinterguy]

I do think at peak times Buxton-Manchester needs either a 4 car working every 20 minutes or a 6 car working every 30 minutes. The 3rd path could be obtained by extending a Hazel Grove service back to Buxton.

That is what happens anyway to provide the half hourly service to/from Buxton at peak times though, isn't it? I didn't think there were any more services terminating at Hazel Grove than the hourly one from Preston.

I'm surprised that the Buxton line could be considered as needing six carriage trains during the peak, although I've only ever travelled on off-peak services on the route mind. I would have thought that three carrriages every half an hour would be fine beyond New Mills. Perhaps if the Buxton services used 185s and ran on the fasts between Piccadilly and Stockport it might be possible to squeeze in an additional electric stopper to Hazel Grove on the slows (only during the peaks, mind) to soak up demand on that end of the route.

 

[pemma]

That is what happens anyway to provide the half hourly service to/from Buxton at peak times though, isn't it?

No at peak times there are 2tph between Buxton and Manchester and 4tph between Hazel Grove and Manchester. Off-peak there is 1tph between Buxton and Manchester and 2tph between Hazel Grove and Manchester.

I'm surprised that the Buxton line could be considered as needing six carriage trains during the peak

Some of the 4 car services are full and standing. Although, it would help if the peak time Buxton services didn't continue beyond Manchester, so they didn't have Stockport-Salford passengers and the like taking up space.

 

[sprinterguy]

No at peak times there are 2tph between Buxton and Manchester and 4tph between Hazel Grove and Manchester. Off-peak there is 1tph between Buxton and Manchester and 2tph between Hazel Grove and Manchester.

Oh yeah, now I see it, cheers for enlightening me
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some of the 4 car services are full and standing. Although, it would help if the peak time Buxton services didn't continue beyond Manchester, so they didn't have Stockport-Salford passengers and the like taking up space.

Yeah, by saying "the Buxton line" I was referring principally to the branch itself between Hazel Grove and Buxton. I have no doubt that three carriages will not be enough between Manchester and Stockport.

 

[pemma]

Yeah, by saying "the Buxton line" I was referring principally to the branch itself between Hazel Grove and Buxton. I have no doubt that three carriages will not be enough between Manchester and Stockport.

But the problem is the afternoon peak services for the Buxton line. If the trains are already packed before arriving at Piccadilly then it could mean Buxton passengers can't get on because the train is already full.

 

[Nym]

Perhaps if the Buxton services used 185s and ran on the fasts between Piccadilly and Stockport it might be possible to squeeze in an additional electric stopper to Hazel Grove on the slows (only during the peaks, mind) to soak up demand on that end of the route.

This is what I had planned, there would be 2tph stoppers to Hazel Grove all stations and the 2tph Buxton would only call at Stockport and Hazel Grove (Then all stations Buxton) since it's a lot easyer to flight services behind eachother on the fasts out of Stockport / Piccadilly I think I'm right in thinking there is a 3min headway possible (until Slade Lane, that causes serious problems)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the problem is the afternoon peak services for the Buxton line. If the trains are already packed before arriving at Piccadilly then it could mean Buxton passengers can't get on because the train is already full.

Hence I would have all the Buxton services terminating at Piccadilly, not only reducing diesel under wires, but if it's sat in piccadilly for 15mins with the doors open, gives everyone a fighting chance of a seat. And also standardises the pattern, and if you wanted to be really clever, it could be set off directly infront of the previous stopper. If the stopper is an EMU and the Buxton runs fast it is sooo much easyer to path!

 

[pemma]

Hence I would have all the Buxton services terminating at Piccadilly, not only reducing diesel under wires, but if it's sat in piccadilly for 15mins with the doors open, gives everyone a fighting chance of a seat.

You would really need an alternative service doing Stockport-Bolton. After the Bolton line is electrified the Alderley Edge turn backs would be the ideal choice but currently if you want to avoid DMUs under wires Buxton and Chester are the best options. Although, Northern don't currently have enough EMUs to run Hazel Grove-Manchester as electric even if it was split.

 

[swt_passenger]

The 350/4s have definitely been described as an interim solution - whether that be 5 years or 15 doesn't seem to be clear. As I understand it they will be on a temporary novation from LM to TPE, so in principle they ought to return to LM at some point.

Excepting that no-one describing them as such has ever come up with a link to any form of official statement about the 350s being an 'interim solution'.

Anyway, 'novation' is a specific legal term that basically means permanent substitution of a party to a contract. There's no such thing as a temporary novation.

If it was intended that the trains were on temporary loan from LM, they'd have surely just been sub-leased, like the SN trains currently with Thameslink.

 

[Nym]

You would really need an alternative service doing Stockport-Bolton. After the Bolton line is electrified the Alderley Edge turn backs would be the ideal choice but currently if you want to avoid DMUs under wires Buxton and Chester are the best options. Although, Northern don't currently have enough EMUs to run Hazel Grove-Manchester as electric even if it was split.

DOn't get me started on that at the moment, them 317s down in store at the moment could come to Northern and take over the electric parts of some of the services that run through Piccadilly. Personally I think we can live without a Stockport - Bolton service for a year or so so that we can basically double the length of Diesel services from Bolton into Oxford Road...

By terminating the Airport - Southport and Hazel Grove - Preston services short at Oxford Road or Piccadilly and interworking them, one can save at least three diesel diagrams, put these on to make the units longer and happy days, we have more seats where the're needed in both directions, with 317s taking over the Hazel Grove route.

When the electrification IS complete I think we need a major shake up of routes to be able to send all the class 142s to the cutters torch, assuming an optimistic electrification for TPE North (Leeds - York via Micklefeild, Micklefeild - Hull via Selby, Selby - Sherburn, Leeds - Castleford - Sherburn (Diversionary Route)) and comited electrification elsewhere.

Things like...
Ending through services from Wigan Wallgate to Victoria via Bolton, 2tph shuttle in place
All Kirkby and Southport services via Atherton (Giving them 3tph)
Minimum 2tph Wigan - Manchester via Paitcroft (Victoria / Exchange)

No Diesel Stoppers via Stockport, 2tph Crewe / Alderley Edge and 2tph Hazel Grove, 4tph Diesel flighted with these (Buxton 2tph, Sheffeild 2tph).

No more stupid extensions of short formations to Manchester Airport, send the biggest diagram available from that route, this could mean Southport loosing it's link.

Services via Castleford replaced with an EMU stopper to York, flighted with a DMU Semi Fast on the current service.

Victoria Turnbacks and Bays: Add in bay platforms from the Chat Moss Lines (Grade seperated at Ordsall Lane) and turnback sidings between the lines feeding 5 and 6 from the East.

Priority to EMU routes, from Bolton for example there should only be 2tph DMU Maximum, (Lakes & Clitheroe, or 2tph Clitheroe), all other services should be EMU run, 4tph to Preston or beyond and 2tph shuttles (slow services) minimum.

You can see where I'd going with this, through journies will be lost, but minimising diesel under wires, and adding in a few 'shuttle' services off the mainlines that would actually be suitable for pacers, even Class 142 units. (Since there is enough space on all the platforms between Bolton and Wigan for the ramps, and you can just lock the toilets out of use, DDA; solved...)

PS: When electrification is complete, Hazel Grove - Preston returns to normal...

There would be 4tph slow arriving from Stockport and 2tph from Airport on the slow lines to slot through 15/16 to somewhere, with Wigan (via Paitcroft), Liverpool Lime St via Newton Le Willows and Bolton providing the only electrified options, it would be logical to send 2tph to each.
But then we're looking at a very congested route through Oxford Road.

6tph Slow lines EMUs. (2tph Liverpool, 2tph Wigan, 2tph Bolton, Proberbly Blackpool N)
4tph Airport via Cord. (2tph Leeds via Diggle, ?1tph Leeds via Halifax, ?1tph Sheffeild via New Mills / Leeds via Halifax)
2tph CLC Semi Fast (1tph from Norwich, 1tph from Cleethorpes)
2tph CLC Slow (Terminating at OR / Piccadilly)
1tph Scotland via Paitcroft (Extension of a service off Euston anyone?)
1tph Southport via Atherton

16tph is do-able, just...

PPS: The way I'm pathing these up, it MIGHT be possible to run the CLC Slows with services off Stockport flighted in the slow lines, but I'd personally be moving these into the fast lines to terminate in the main shed (Buxtons) where the Liverpool L St via CLC Semis (EMT) would also be flighted behind an EMU stopper, they would continue onto the main shed, and be replaced on the slow lines by the Airport Slows at Slade Lane. This would allow a 'swap round' between paths at Piccadilly, as two EMUs will arrive at roughly the same time, and one wishes to keep 30min frequency on each, within dwell times, these can swap over, so 1tph from Hazel Grove goes to Liverpool and 1tph to Blackpool, and vice versa with the Airport. Wigan in this situation would be stuck with Crewe / Alderley Edge.

Oh and yes, I am providing 4tph to Levenshume and Heaton Chappel, it just fits nicely. More can be provided on the Styal Branch by stopping random other services at subsiquent stations on route. Usually East Didsbury and Heald Green (the busyer stations).

 

[pemma]

Personally I think we can live without a Stockport - Bolton service for a year...

By terminating the Airport - Southport and Hazel Grove - Preston services short at Oxford Road or Piccadilly and interworking them, one can save at least three diesel diagrams

Northern can't make that decision. It's a franchise requirement for them to provide 1tph between Stockport and Oxford Road and double frequency at peak times. They can apply to change it but the application could be rejected and the application process will take time.

 

[Nym]

Northern can't make that decision. It's a franchise requirement for them to provide 1tph between Stockport and Oxford Road and double frequency at peak times. They can apply to change it but the application could be rejected and the application process will take time.

When services can start running to Wigan NW via Paitcroft this can cover that gap by running 1/2tph Hazel Grove - Wigan NW via Stockport, Oxford Road and Paitcroft. Then the DMUs spared can bigeyfy the services via Bolton, to account for the loss of the Lakes & Scottish services.

So then thats Stockport - Oxford Road happy...

Also handy that at the exact time that services via Bolton will get cut, there will be DMUs freed up by curtailing the Hazel Grove service to Oxford Road for Preston, and sending the actual Hazel Grove service, now an EMU, on to Wigan NW.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its Patricroft not Paitcroft.

 

[Nym]

Its Patricroft not Paitcroft.

Wow, another wonderfully informative post that adds so much to the topic... </sarcasm>

I'll stick with Eccles next time, since I can spell that one.

 

[tbtc]

Its Patricroft not Paitcroft.

Wow, another wonderfully informative post that adds so much to the topic... </sarcasm>

...and yet you picked me up on my spelling of Stalybridge a few weeks ago in a similar post.

 

[Bevan Price]

185's are fuel-hungry beasts with 100 mph capability. I see little prospect of any TOC wanting to deploy them on local or semi-fast services to places like Buxton or Southport. Indeed, in my opinion, their capabilities are somewhat wasted by using them on Blackpool services. (At least, not until they get much older, when it might make sense to de-rate their engines, and possibly convert the centre coaches to unpowered trailers.)

 

[David]

185's are fuel-hungry beasts with 100 mph capability. I see little prospect of any TOC wanting to deploy them on local or semi-fast services to places like Buxton or Southport. Indeed, in my opinion, their capabilities are somewhat wasted by using them on Blackpool services. (At least, not until they get much older, when it might make sense to de-rate their engines, and possibly convert the centre coaches to unpowered trailers.)

They may be fuel hungry, but they are very quick from a standing start, and hills don't really bother them. Add in the 1/3 and 2/3 doors, then they are almost perfect for hilly routes like the Buxton branch as well as TPE routes.