Thanks. I've seen a few 142s on York to Blackpool trains recently, usually attached to something else. I've never seen or heard of a 144 at Preston or Blackpool before. They used to run to Manchester Victoria quite freqently.Leeds do go through to Blackpool yes, it would have to be a Leeds crew, no west side drivers sign 144s any more.
Plenty of resonance with the Virgin/Railtrack WCML upgrade there.One moral of this tale is if you are planning on taking up a franchise with lots of infrastructure change assumptions, lawyer up.
Complaining you can't deliver a timetable because the other side didn't do what they promised won't cut it.
The design and planning of the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme was much more advanced than you seem to suggest. Project launch was in 2012 and GRIP 3 (single option selection) was completed in March 2014, after NR held a public consultation on the options in October 2013. There was a further public consultation on the detailed plans in September 2014 and NR submitted the TWAO application to the SoS in December 2014. The public inquiry was held from September to November 2015 and the inquiry report (which the DfT has refused to publish) was completed in February 2016 - see https://www.twansport.co.uk/infraprojects/manchester-piccadilly-and-oxford-road-capacity-scheme/. At this point the project would have been pretty much "shovel ready", subject to any recommendations from the inquiry in respect of the detailed design or construction programme.I will propose that only those changes under package CS5 were necessary to move from TSR1 to TSR2 as that is the only remapping date referenced to this.
Some of the minor electrification works around Manchester don't sound material if for relatively little mileage they can be deferred for years. The additional 8+3 diesel units from a fleet of nearly 400 is inconvenient but should not be a show stopper.
The Piccadilly scheme was on another level of scale and complexity to Ordsall with extensive rebuilding of two stations, signalling design not to mention listed building consents and the rest. It was never going to be ready to start or to be delivered in anything close to those timescales among many other schemes in that epic work of fiction known as CP5, depending what account is given for the fact this scheme was not even through GRIP3 when it was written.
You got your money back, how should they have done it? Was probably quicker that way.Got a cheque off Northern today refunding me a taxi I had to pay for after they left me marooned. It’s a handwritten, hand signed (twice) cheque in a handwritten envelope.
How tinpot can you get?
You got your money back, how should they have done it? Was probably quicker that way.
I suppose that the operative word is "still" but in my BR days I had to hand-write and sign innumerable cheques for refunds.Given I get delay repay via BACS I’d have expected that. But my point was more that an organisation of that size still handwrites cheques.
Can't help thinking that there are more serious signs of the supposed "crumbling" in this thread
Have they managed to get enough 195s into service that they can reduce the pacers to these numbers at midnight and still run even there inadequate service?Northern have been told they can keep 47 Pacers in service (24 142s and 23 144s) until May and August respectively . The 142s can only operate coupled to a compliant unit. They have also been granted derogation for 7 150s, 6 156s and all 20 153s until they have had their mods. This is for certain routes in Yorkshire afaik
So much for the transformation. But I guess the stock is still needed
There is also a dispensation for 12 of the 323s until they are modified.Northern have been told they can keep 47 Pacers in service (24 142s and 23 144s) until May and August respectively . The 142s can only operate coupled to a compliant unit. They have also been granted derogation for 7 150s, 6 156s and all 20 153s until they have had their mods. This is for certain routes in Yorkshire afaik
So much for the transformation. But I guess the stock is still needed
I agree with CaptainHaddock on this point, Realtime Trains shows no extended dwells. In fact, a turnround at Bradford Interchange of one and three-quarter minutes seems positively jet-propelled!
Are you sure we're talking about the same train? The previous Blackpool departure, 1017 ex-Bradfprd, did have a five-minute dwell.
Wouldn't a wheelchair passenger have had a problem anyway, if it was a Pacer?
The fact the scheme spent 4 years trying to get through consultation is informative.The design and planning of the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme was much more advanced than you seem to suggest. Project launch was in 2012 and GRIP 3 (single option selection) was completed in March 2014, after NR held a public consultation on the options in October 2013. There was a further public consultation on the detailed plans in September 2014 and NR submitted the TWAO application to the SoS in December 2014. The public inquiry was held from September to November 2015 and the inquiry report (which the DfT has refused to publish) was completed in February 2016 - see https://www.twansport.co.uk/infraprojects/manchester-piccadilly-and-oxford-road-capacity-scheme/. At this point the project would have been pretty much "shovel ready", subject to any recommendations from the inquiry in respect of the detailed design or construction programme.
NR has taken down most of the scheme documentation from its website, but an August 2014 draft of the Transport Assessment part of the Environmental Statement that supported the TWAO application can still be downloaded from https://consultations.networkrail.c...-and-piccadilly---environmental-statement.pdf. This 114 page document shows the maturity of the project planning, including traffic counts for all the roads in the area and the proposals for road closures and bus, taxi, cycle and pedestrian diversions during construction.
A 3D fly-through video simulation of the completed scheme has been preserved on a third party website at https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/watch-how-piccadilly-oxford-road-7898576. NR released this in October 2014 to support the public consultation.
The specific factors that caused the delays to the NW electrification projects would not have read across to this project. A better benchmark is NR's performance on the other non-electrification packages under the Northern Hub umbrella. Piccadilly/Oxford Road would in fact be on a similar scale to the Ordsall Chord construction, which involved a major new viaduct through the city centre and complex junction and signalling work interfacing with the live railway. On a somewhat smaller scale, the Manchester Victoria refurbishment project was successfully completed in 28 months and Manchester Airport Platform 4 was completed ahead of schedule in 2015.
I agree that the DfT and Arriva considered that only the CS5 changes, including the Ordsall Chord but the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme, were necessary to move from TSR1 to TSR2, as originally scheduled for December 2017. The unexplained anomaly concerns the change from TSR2 to TSR3, originally scheduled for December 2019. NR always maintained that the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme would increase capacity through Piccadilly from 12tph (11 passenger, 1 freight), which is what we actually have now, to 16tph (14 passenger, 2 freight). See for example https://consultations.networkrail.c...ster-oxford-road-and-piccadilly-rail-improve/. But TSR3 required an increase to 13tph. The franchise agreement also specified a feasibility study on the "Manchester Airport Proposal", which was an Arriva proposal, over and above the TSRs, for a service between Blackburn and the Airport via Todmorden, giving a fourth hourly train around the Ordsall Chord. This would have meant 14tph through Piccadilly.
I understand, from various sources, that the originally-planned May 2018 timetable (which had to be abandoned at a late stage because of the electrification delays) would have included the Bradford - Airport service, brought forward from TSR3. There would then have been 13tph scheduled, and the chaos would no doubt have been even worse than actually occurred with the reworked May 2018 timetable.
It is puzzling that the DfT, Arriva and TPE all apparently believed, right up to May 2018, that the capacity of the Castlefield corridor, without the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme, would be even greater than Network Rail's optimistic advice.
Very much agree with this. The problem with those calling for the renationalisation of Northern is that this would simply bring it back to the model which caused the problem in the first place. Equally, the current model gives no incentive for change as the unions know that any losses will ultimately end up being met by the taxpayer. Far better to move to a model where a successful franchisee is the one who will operate the maximum number of services commercially, with subsidy directed towards specific services where this not possible. This would mean that, aside from subsidy for those journeys, the only income coming would be through the fare box. This would create a greater lever for renegotiating terms and conditions in order to survive as a viable operation.The problems we are seeing stem from the restrictive crew rostering, training and diagramming practices enforced by the fact their trade unions have too much power and no incentive to support the commercial success of the business employing their members.
Northern will have to get rid of their Random Unit Generator if that's the case. Potentially going to be quite a few short-formee 150s & 156s as a result of this requirement.Northern have been told they can keep 47 Pacers in service (24 142s and 23 144s) until May and August respectively . The 142s can only operate coupled to a compliant unit. They have also been granted derogation for 7 150s, 6 156s and all 20 153s until they have had their mods. This is for certain routes in Yorkshire afaik
So much for the transformation. But I guess the stock is still needed
They wiped out most of the 142s over the timetable change weekend. Since then there have only been 10 to 15 in use each day but several have been on their own.Have they managed to get enough 195s into service that they can reduce the pacers to these numbers at midnight and still run even there inadequate service?
The problems we are seeing stem from the restrictive crew rostering, training and diagramming practices enforced by the fact their trade unions have too much power and no incentive to support the commercial success of the business employing their members.
I think - although I'm not sure and would like this confirmed/denied - a cheque can be faxed (!! - anyone still got a fax machine??) or more likely e-mailed and then either printed off or shown at the branch; and the cheque honoured? Anyone??You got your money back, how should they have done it? Was probably quicker that way.
I think - although I'm not sure and would like this confirmed/denied - a cheque can be faxed (!! - anyone still got a fax machine??) or more likely e-mailed and then either printed off or shown at the branch; and the cheque honoured? Anyone??
But these days I would have thought the standard procedure would be to send (mail or e-mail) the taxi receipt + your bank details and they simply transfer the money to you; but is there any risk to that? I suppose you could "try it on" and attempt several fraudulent repayments from the one receipt whereas if you send it in physically that can't happen?
Why aren't they getting trained on them?Such as? With the exception of the Sunday problem of course.
What other problems in relation to Diagrams, Rostering and Training are the Unions causing the stop them running a train service?
Did they cause a service to be cancelled a few weeks ago out of Liverpool because it was a new driver who didn’t sign 142’s, because they aren’t getting trained on them, root cause being incorrect traction to diagram.
Or a few services cancelled between Doncaster & Scunthorpe because a 144 was about to run of exam miles?
Of course the cancellations aren't just a Sunday problem?Such as? With the exception of the Sunday problem of course.
What other problems in relation to Diagrams, Rostering and Training are the Unions causing the stop them running a train service?
Did they cause a service to be cancelled a few weeks ago out of Liverpool because it was a new driver who didn’t sign 142’s, because they aren’t getting trained on them, root cause being incorrect traction to diagram.
Or a few services cancelled between Doncaster & Scunthorpe because a 144 was about to run of exam miles?
Somewhat belatedly, but I've been doing some timing...There is something fundamentally flawed in a system that does not account for the fact you have probably stopped to let the first train through.
That's only because someone agreed that they could take their banked rest days, in lieu of effectively mandatory overtime to get the training course done, whenever they chose to. It seems rather a silly thing to have agreed, given the pretty obvious demand for time off (which is usually declined!) on the days that you mention, but you can hardly blame the staff for making the most of the situation!Of course the cancellations aren't just a Sunday problem?
They are a Saturday problem, a Christmas Eve problem and a Friday before the holidays problem.
It is pretty clear that the staff choose when they prefer to work and not the company paying them.