Is it a mistake for FTPE to order the 397 / 802 / MK5 trains?

[swt class 450]

Does anyone else think it is a big mistake for First Trans Pennine Express to order the class 397 and class 802 and MK5 trains? At the moment they have an excellent well designed fleet of 185 and 350 trains. These trains have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions and generally a very good well designed spacious layout. The one and only problem is that they are not long enough and there is not enough of them. Where as these new 397s and 802s and MK5s are going to have more narrow single doors at the very ends of each coach. This will mean that the trains will feel much less spacious and more cramped and generally just not as nice to travel on (especially during busy times). This will also increase dwell times as it will take much longer for people to board and alight at each station stop. Personally i think it would have been far better to just order more 185s and 350s (or other trains of a similar design with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 layout). Does anyone else agree with this?

 

[BMIFlyer]

Does anyone else agree with this?

No.

TPE are changing from a long distance commuter network to an intercity network. They need trains that provide an intercity image - trains with long carriages and doors at the ends of the vehicles do just that.

The ambience will be better, the travelling environment will be better.

The 185 fleet will primarily be used on the commuter type routes in 2 years from now - the new fleet will be used on long distance trains.

I say that the correct decision has been made - the loco hauled one especially gives TPE a new fleet of trains very quickly.

 

[CosherB]

Does anyone else think it is a big mistake for First Trans Pennine Express to order the class 397 and class 802 and MK5 trains? At the moment they have an excellent well designed fleet of 185 and 350 trains. These trains have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions and generally a very good well designed spacious layout. The one and only problem is that they are not long enough and there is not enough of them. Where as these new 397s and 802s and MK5s are going to have more narrow single doors at the very ends of each coach. This will mean that the trains will feel much less spacious and more cramped and generally just not as nice to travel on (especially during busy times). This will also increase dwell times as it will take much longer for people to board and alight at each station stop. Personally i think it would have been far better to just order more 185s and 350s (or other trains of a similar design with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 layout). Does anyone else agree with this?

No ...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Ambience of the new trains - fine for a long-distance TOC.
Loco hauled? Don't see the point. The excuse is quick delivery, but they've had 10 years to prepare for it, and service introduction is being delayed anyway.
And I think not ordering tilting trains for the WCML services is wrong, as it was for the 350s.
There should be a tilt capability on TP North as well, to achieve the desired journey times.
But a medium size TOC choosing to have 4 different types of stock from 3 different manufacturers? Crazy.

 

[Mordac]

Ambience of the new trains - fine for a long-distance TOC.
Loco hauled? Don't see the point. The excuse is quick delivery, but they've had 10 years to prepare for it, and service introduction is being delayed anyway.
And I think not ordering tilting trains for the WCML services is wrong, as it was for the 350s.
There should be a tilt capability on TP North as well, to achieve the desired journey times.
But a medium size TOC choosing to have 4 different types of stock from 3 different manufacturers? Crazy.

Agree with this pretty much. The one exception is that I think the WCML services will struggle with single end doors, they're some of the busiest trains in the country ATM from Manchester to Wigan.

 

[hibtastic]

No from me too.

As a regular user of the 350s on longer distance services, they are essentially a commuter train and not suited to the role. Carriages with end doors will work alot better on these routes. As will the Hitachi and loco hauled units on the faster intercity TPE North services.

I use the 185s every day and they are absolutely far too small for the job - every morning and evening is an extremely unpleasant experience albeit my journey is only 12 minutes from Stalybridge to Piccadilly. Once the new trains arrive the 185s should hopefully be doubled up to provide adequate space although I am sure that people will still be standing in the aisles or in the ball room (I liked that phrase) in coach C. The 185s will be more suited to this role though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does anyone else think it is a big mistake for First Trans Pennine Express to order the class 397 and class 802 and MK5 trains?

No, I think they have made the right choice to order InterCity trains for InterCity services. Only fear I have is that they may need to be longer as I believe the very high quality of them will increase patronage substantially.

 

[mike57]

I regularly undertake 2hr+ journeys on TPE North. The current layout is fine for short distances but after a while the hot cold hot effect in winter is unpleasant.

The 3 car trains are inadequate for most services, and in the rush hour are rammed on the Leeds Manchester runs

I suspect that the loco hauled stock may turn out to be the best investment, they can adapt the traction easily as electrification spreads. Also not having an engine drumming under the floor will be nice.

I for one will be pleased to travel on more suitable trains. As for the mixture, well I can understand that it may lead to problems, but only time will tell.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with this pretty much. The one exception is that I think the WCML services will struggle with single end doors, they're some of the busiest trains in the country ATM from Manchester to Wigan.

If anything they should be barred to those passengers rather than use stock not suitable for the main InterCity service. There are plenty of other Manchester to Wigan services.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as I can tell the class 397s will have door spacings similar to the 350s so don't really enter into this discussion.

 

[HSTEd]

They probably should have ordered a uniform fleet of IEP style bimodes

 

[absolutelymilk]

If anything they should be barred to those passengers rather than use stock not suitable for the main InterCity service. There are plenty of other Manchester to Wigan services.

By the time the 397s get there, TPE should be running via Bolton rather than Wigan.

 

[Domh245]

As far as I can tell the class 397s will have door spacings similar to the 350s so don't really enter into this discussion.

This is the most recent image I can find, and it looks like end doors on the intermediate coaches, and doors inset from the end by one window on driving coaches.

 

[dosxuk]

I'm sure I remember people arguing basically the opposite when the 158s were being replaced by the 185s.

 

[pemma]

No the SRA made a mistake by awarding a franchise which ordered 185s. Given the reduced seating capacity on the 185s they should have made a choice of whether to go for 3 cars with single doors or 4 cars with double doors, with the option to lengthen trains in both cases.

 

[jzw95]

At the moment they have an excellent well designed fleet of 185 and 350 trains. These trains have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions and generally a very good well designed spacious layout.

Having travelled between Manchester and Edinburgh on them a few times, they were neither comfortable, nor spacious. I also once did another TPE route (east to west, or the other way, can't remember), and it also was a cramped, uncomfortable journey.

I guess it depends on what journey you're doing, and what your expectations are. But for long distance travel, they are not good, and don't feel well-suited.

 

[DarloRich]

Does anyone else think it is a big mistake for First Trans Pennine Express to order the class 397 and class 802 and MK5 trains? At the moment they have an excellent well designed fleet of 185 and 350 trains. These trains have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions and generally a very good well designed spacious layout. The one and only problem is that they are not long enough and there is not enough of them. Where as these new 397s and 802s and MK5s are going to have more narrow single doors at the very ends of each coach. This will mean that the trains will feel much less spacious and more cramped and generally just not as nice to travel on (especially during busy times). This will also increase dwell times as it will take much longer for people to board and alight at each station stop. Personally i think it would have been far better to just order more 185s and 350s (or other trains of a similar design with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 layout). Does anyone else agree with this?

While your opinion is , of course, valid i cant agree

 

[tbtc]

TPE are changing from a long distance commuter network to an intercity network. They need trains that provide an intercity image - trains with long carriages and doors at the ends of the vehicles do just that

The new franchise will pick up responsibility for local stations like Slatihwaite/ Marsden/ Greenfield etc, so if anything TPE is changing to more of a "local" provider.

That said, there does seem to be a Forum obsession with clear cut distinctions between "Intercity" and "non-Intercity" (see also "outer suburban" vs "long distance etc) - a lot of routes are a muddle of different markets.

The headline Manchester Airport - Newcastle service is a lightly loaded train from the Airport to Piccadilly that needs to cater for passengers with a lot of luggage... then a busy commuter route with high turnover of passengers from Piccadilly to York (which needs wider doors to cope with station dwell times)... then relatively long distance north of York (albeit it's the slowest train on the line stopping at Thirsk/ Northallterton/ Chester le Street).

So any train has to be a compromise - end doors will be nicer for the minority of passengers doing the longer journeys but they'll be outnumbered as the service passes through Yorkshire.

A four coach 185 would have been a reasonable compromise - their doors are more like "quarter and three quarter" AFAICR - I think dwell times at places like Piccadilly's 13/14 are going to struggle with "end door" carriages.

a medium size TOC choosing to have 4 different types of stock from 3 different manufacturers? Crazy

Agreed.

First/MTR are replacing almost two hundred EMUs of four types (455/ 456/ 458/ 700) with one mega-fleet of units to keep costs down/ improve flexibility etc.

Greater Anglia are replacing around eight fleets with two or three (depending on how pedantic people want to be about subfleets etc).

But First are going to have 185s/ 397s/ 802s plus local hauled on a significantly smaller franchise?

Add in the "it's cheaper to get new trains than to retain old ones" argument against the idea of retaining 185s for Manchester - Leeds services... it looks like a mess.

 

[fowler9]

Does anyone else think it is a big mistake for First Trans Pennine Express to order the class 397 and class 802 and MK5 trains? At the moment they have an excellent well designed fleet of 185 and 350 trains. These trains have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions and generally a very good well designed spacious layout. The one and only problem is that they are not long enough and there is not enough of them. Where as these new 397s and 802s and MK5s are going to have more narrow single doors at the very ends of each coach. This will mean that the trains will feel much less spacious and more cramped and generally just not as nice to travel on (especially during busy times). This will also increase dwell times as it will take much longer for people to board and alight at each station stop. Personally i think it would have been far better to just order more 185s and 350s (or other trains of a similar design with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 layout). Does anyone else agree with this?

Don't agree I'm afraid. All lot of things are getting re gigged in the North to allow for the changes including how Northern work as a whole as well. Trans Pennine should never have been allowed to become a slightly longer distance commuter service. They are long distance, Inter City services and should be treated as such.

 

[fowler9]

Agree with this pretty much. The one exception is that I think the WCML services will struggle with single end doors, they're some of the busiest trains in the country ATM from Manchester to Wigan.

Manchester to Wigan is commuter land. You don't think Virgin West and East coast should have more commuter style trains for the stops nearer London do you?

 

[Altfish]

As someone who travels regularly on the Manchester to Leeds/Newcastle route (on 185s) and occasionally on the Manchester to Scotland route (on the 350/4).
The main thought is that they are both too small.
3-car on Liverpool to Leeds is daft; the occasional double set again is not big enough in rush hour.
As for the Scotland to Manchester Airport services, I often use the 0709 from Glasgow, this is relatively quiet until Carlisle, it then gets increasingly busy, it is full by Lancaster, I have seen fights trying to get on at Preston and by Wigan it is everyone for themselves.

 

[F Great Eastern]

No the SRA made a mistake by awarding a franchise which ordered 185s. Given the reduced seating capacity on the 185s they should have made a choice of whether to go for 3 cars with single doors or 4 cars with double doors, with the option to lengthen trains in both cases.

First wanted to order 168 cars with an option to add a fourth car to the trains, in the end the SRA allowed 153 cars and no fourth car came and various proposals for strengthening the services never happened, again largely due to the government.
.

 

[Mordac]

Having travelled between Manchester and Edinburgh on them a few times, they were neither comfortable, nor spacious. I also once did another TPE route (east to west, or the other way, can't remember), and it also was a cramped, uncomfortable journey.

I guess it depends on what journey you're doing, and what your expectations are. But for long distance travel, they are not good, and don't feel well-suited.

I spent a year commuting between Edinburgh and Lancaster, and I have to say I disagree with this. While I appreciated the faster journey times on VTWC, I preferred the 350s for comfort, and this is from someone who actually likes the Pendos and doesn't hate the Voyagers (at least in their VTWC incarnation).

 

[Class 170101]

I feel the loco hauled will be a mistake due to the wasted space that DVTs and locomotives create. The IEP / Class 802 used on FGW would have been better. More should have been ordered instead of loco hauled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I spent a year commuting between Edinburgh and Lancaster, and I have to say I disagree with this. While I appreciated the faster journey times on VTWC, I preferred the 350s for comfort, and this is from someone who actually likes the Pendos and doesn't hate the Voyagers (at least in their VTWC incarnation).

Apart from one side of the centre section where an extra row is crammed in, the 350 does have quite high comfort - it certainly rivals the Pendolino, and the windows are bigger. But it still can't help feel like a suburban EMU, even if it happens to be a particularly good suburban EMU.

OTOH, the Class 380 does seem somehow to have a real IC feel about it despite *being* a suburban EMU! Maybe a Desiro Verve derivative would have worked well for some TPE services, though I don't think a DMU version is offered.

I feel the loco hauled will be a mistake due to the wasted space that DVTs and locomotives create.

This is not a problem with 5-car trains. It's a London commuter, long-train issue.

 

[GW43125]

I feel the loco hauled will be a mistake due to the wasted space that DVTs and locomotives create. The IEP / Class 802 used on FGW would have been better. More should have been ordered instead of loco hauled.

that DVT may as you say be "wasted space" but if you've got a lot of people flown into Manchester and heading north with lots of luggage (as I've seen), that "wasted space" suddenly becomes a godsend for storing aforementioned luggage. This is (OT warning) another of the reasons I think a full-on MU choice for GW was wrong. One sunny Saturday and you can't move for all the luggage everywhere.

 

[Bungle965]

I feel the loco hauled will be a mistake due to the wasted space that DVTs and locomotives create. The IEP / Class 802 used on FGW would have been better. More should have been ordered instead of loco hauled.

They will not be DVTs they will be DBSOs that they are using will have seats in, obviously not as much as the Mk5s but will at least have some.
Sam

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure that the DVT that they are using will have seats in, obviously not as much as the Mk5s but will at least have some.
Sam

Indeed, they are not DVTs, they are DBSOs, which basically makes them the same as an EMU end vehicle.

 

[Bungle965]

Indeed, they are not DVTs, they are DBSOs, which basically makes them the same as an EMU end vehicle.

Yes I was just looking as I was doubting myself that they were DVT`s.
Sam

 

[fowler9]

I feel the loco hauled will be a mistake due to the wasted space that DVTs and locomotives create. The IEP / Class 802 used on FGW would have been better. More should have been ordered instead of loco hauled.

They aren't DVT's. There is no more wasted space then having a cab at one end of a multiple unit. I am sure that they looked at the economics of this before going for loco hauled instead of the Hitachi product including things such as delivery time. They are a business after all.