• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

Status
Not open for further replies.

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
If the other trains on the route are high quality and long enough, people won't have to try to crowd onto the Scotland trains.


That's getting back into available paths again - we are in a different era now, both CrossCountry and TPE aren't really just long distance, but also commuter
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Virgin would have had to set up a whole new staff infrastructure for the then Bi-hourly trains

But Virgin WC did operate them in the interim between the Arriva XC franchise starting and the timetable change the following December.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
Doesn't having two operators on the WCML for Wigan to Glasgow / Edinburgh at least allow for some competition possibilities which should help keep prices lower?
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
However, they could redesign the UIC version and have many more guaranteed orders for it. They will not have done the same amount of redesigning work for a much smaller market and then commit to build a grand total of four new trains based on that design. The 'new' UK Pendolino would be to the existing design what the Class 222 is to the 220/221 design, basically.

The basic 390 design dates back to 1997 or thereabouts when Virgin issued an invitation to tender, so it is long past its sell-by date. And it was made clear at the time the second batch of 390s and the extra coaches were ordered that that would be it for that variant - for the very simple reason that Alstom was moving on to a new generation of Pendolinos. Any future UK orders will be based on that template, not on what came out of the design office in the late 1990s.

And does Alliance actually have a signed contract with Alstom anyway? When Virgin was talking about buying 21 new baby Pendolinos for the new West Coast franchise, before the franchising fiasco put paid to that idea, no wonder Alstom was interested in a new UK variant - and adding a few more on for an open access operator would have seemed a fine idea. Remember we have yet to see one of Alliance's famed Chinese trains...

I was trying to put my argument in terms of why, if The Powers That Be decide that Manchester-Scotland should remain with TransPennine and not be put in the West Coast franchise, that it would still be a reasonable idea for the TransPennine operator to run Pendolinos on the route rather than go for a fully consistent fleet all its routes. I don't know if it would even be possible for Manchester-Scotland to be put in the ICWC franchise given that the tender just went out on having it in the TransPennine one. Clearly, if the decision were made later to change this, for example when the franchises need redesigned to cope with HS2, then it would be more than possible for the ICWC operator to take on the entire Manchester-Scotland operation, trains, crews, timetable and all.

As we know full well, the DfT can and will do whatever it pleases with franchises, whenever it likes. As things currently stand, the shortlisted TPE bidders are probably asking themselves what on earth it is that they are actually being asked to bid to run anyway.


If there are going to be six TP North paths an hour, the 'InterCity' service would take up at most two of them. It would not be ideal for these two to be filled by trains with end doors, but with the way the electrification project has collapsed temporarily I cannot think of any other way of increasing capacity and reducing journey times on the route other than buying standard bi-mode AT300s and trying to make as many of the other services as long as possible. Had the electrification been complete for 2018 as originally planned, I have no doubts that the bidders would have picked the Desiro Verve or the AT200, both designs being capable of 125mph and having wide suburban-style doorways. If Hitachi or Siemens offer their designs with enough diesel engines underneath to be able to run as quickly over the Pennines as the current 185s can, then I have no doubt that they would prefer to get them as well. In any case, end doors aren't a problem if the train is long enough for people to be able to sit down. The solution I'm proposing would see AT300s used with as many carriages as possible and interiors set up for high capacity, not the piddly little Class 158 sets which used to cause so many problems.

You can set up the interior of a train however you like, you can put in as many seats as you like. But unless the doors and vestibules and gangways allow people to get in and out quickly then trains will be slow to load and unload, whether they have two coaches or 10. Just visit Reading and see how long it takes to get an HST back under way again. This will continue to be an issue with 800/801 operations, though it is to be hoped a lot of the Reading commuters can be encouraged to use the fast 387 formations, which will give them a better chance of a seat than on an already busy train arriving from further west.

You could order bi-mode AT300s for TPE but what do you do with them a few years down the line if the wiring eventually gets sorted out and an operator decides they would much rather have a common fleet of electric units - would a leasing company fund such a bi-mode order in the first place? Remember that a key factor in the lack of dmu orders was doubt about whether there would be enough work left to keep them running throughout their lifetime and earning leasing fees, which is not what the finance people want to hear.

One must always remember that this particular part of the current TPE franchise was not part of the original franchise agreement and when discussing such a matter, it is only fair to look to the events that led up to this addition of the TPE franchise and which organisation was the prime mover in that event happening.

If blame is held to be a needed entity in this matter, then let that blame fall squarely upon the shoulders of the organisation who deemed this action to be correct.

I'm well aware of how this service came to be part of TPE thanks. But we're not talking about the past here, we're talking about the way forward.

DfT has been messing around with the franchise map for two decades now, so I see no reason for them not to have another go, especially when you look at a situation where the TPE Scottish service is now able to use electric traction, is sharing the bulk of its route with Virgin West Coast anyway, and looks a sight more like a long-distance InterCity service than pretty much anything else in the TPE portfolio - while electrification of the North TPE route, which had brought the prospect of being able to deploy a common fleet of electric trains on that route and to Scotland, has now been shunted into a siding for who knows how long.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
The benefit of modular Bi-modal designs, such as the 800, is that when the engine becomes surplus to requirements, you simply remove the engine and generator raft, reconfigure the software, blank over some panels in the cabs, and away you go.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The benefit of modular Bi-modal designs, such as the 800, is that when the engine becomes surplus to requirements, you simply remove the engine and generator raft, reconfigure the software, blank over some panels in the cabs, and away you go.

I would have thought it would make more financial sense to cascade the bi-mode units elsewhere and replace with new electric only, unless the bi-mode equipment is life expired, given new electric will be cheaper than new bi-mode.

In the case of TPE I can imagine bi-mode equipment remaining useful even after Manchester-York electrification given diversionary routes won't be electrified in the foreseeable future and TPE may continue to serve non-electrified destinations like Scarborough.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
But Virgin WC did operate them in the interim between the Arriva XC franchise starting and the timetable change the following December.

There is a difference between inefficently temporarily operated something with loaned resources and operating something long term in a cost efficient manner.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
The benefit of modular Bi-modal designs, such as the 800, is that when the engine becomes surplus to requirements, you simply remove the engine and generator raft, reconfigure the software, blank over some panels in the cabs, and away you go.

But like I said, would a TPE operator want to keep a small number of AT300s, even with the engines removed, if the rest of its fleet was made up of a bulk order of a standard electric unit? I doubt it.

I would have thought it would make more financial sense to cascade the bi-mode units elsewhere and replace with new electric only, unless the bi-mode equipment is life expired, given new electric will be cheaper than new bi-mode.

In the case of TPE I can imagine bi-mode equipment remaining useful even after Manchester-York electrification given diversionary routes won't be electrified in the foreseeable future and TPE may continue to serve non-electrified destinations like Scarborough.

But where would you cascade them to? There has to be some sort of plan, because otherwise no one is going to finance such a fleet in the first place without some guarantees that it will be earning its keep for the long term. Even when the 375s and 387s were being ordered as stopgaps for Thameslink, there was always going to be some sort of long-term work coming up for them with the spread of electrification.

Even if Hitachi is asked to supply trains to TPE, the earliest they would be likely to be able to deliver anything is early 2019, once the GWR AT300 order is completed, freeing up the production line at Kasado. If Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-York wiring is rescheduled for early in CP6, would there be any point in acquiring bi-modes that late if electrics can start running a couple of years later?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
If Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-York wiring is rescheduled for early in CP6, would there be any point in acquiring bi-modes that late if electrics can start running a couple of years later?

Very much so. When are Middlesbrough and Scarborough going to be electrified and when are the usual diversionary routes for North TPE (via Wakefield, Calder Vale and Warrington Central) going to be electrified? If all North TPE services go over to EMU wait for the complaints about the truncated services and frequent busitutions, given TPE run services 24 hours a day 7 days a week diversions are necessary.

But where would you cascade them to? There has to be some sort of plan

XC?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
If Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-York wiring is rescheduled for early in CP6,


if if if - we've had if for years, wiring for Manchester-Leeds ain't gonna happen because HS3 will blow the economic case for "just" six trains per hour out the water with its potential for twice as many, faster longer and bigger loading gauge trains. Similarly with MML, St Pancras to Leicester will happen, North of there will be left to HS2. Time to buy some bi-mode local sets.... Lots of them
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Absolutely - although I'm expecting the next CrossCountry franchise to have a huge bolded out paragraph for new trains.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2011
Messages
779
if if if - we've had if for years, wiring for Manchester-Leeds ain't gonna happen because HS3 will blow the economic case for "just" six trains per hour out the water with its potential for twice as many, faster longer and bigger loading gauge trains. Similarly with MML, St Pancras to Leicester will happen, North of there will be left to HS2. Time to buy some bi-mode local sets.... Lots of them
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Absolutely - although I'm expecting the next CrossCountry franchise to have a huge bolded out paragraph for new trains.

HS3 won't do anything to improve services for intermediate stations (except perhaps Huddersfield depending on the exact route) and is not going to happen for another 15 years. The Transpennine core needs something in the medium term and electrification replacing six 'Intercity/Inter-regional' trains plus some Northern local services is more than some other schemes currently approved.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I can't see the TP wiring being reinstated in the short term.
It's all now linked in with the Northern Hub work (also delayed), and maybe HS3 decisions.
It remains baffling that the eastern section (Neville Hill-Colton Jn/Selby) has been stopped.
It's difficult to see what issues there were on these straight and simple routes.
A plan to run local EMUs would be better than the limbo the whole project seems to be in.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
HS3 won't do anything to improve services for intermediate stations (except perhaps Huddersfield depending on the exact route) and is not going to happen for another 15 years.

Yes it will, move the Newcastle-York-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool customers onto HS3 and you've then got space for 4-5 stopping trains of up to six carriages long - think longer term.

The Transpennine core needs something in the medium term and electrification replacing six 'Intercity/Inter-regional' trains plus some Northern local services is more than some other schemes currently approved.


Electrification on TPE is very dependant on resources available - currently GWML is gobbling resource up, Crossrail will be banging the drum for resource between now and late 2018, Bedford to Corby might not get a sniff until at least 2019, at least another couple of years to get to Leicester. Meanwhile, in the north, construction of Sheffield to Leeds HS2 has begun, the TBM's are munching their way between Manchester Airport and Ardwick and HS2 phase 1 is well underway, paving the way for the missing link between Manchester and Barnsley as a HS line. So perhaps you might get cables up for TPE by 2023 if you ignore the bigger picture of HS2/3, if your a consultant trying to get the BCR to work... Your going to be having big headaches at night !
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
The basic 390 design dates back to 1997 or thereabouts when Virgin issued an invitation to tender, so it is long past its sell-by date. And it was made clear at the time the second batch of 390s and the extra coaches were ordered that that would be it for that variant - for the very simple reason that Alstom was moving on to a new generation of Pendolinos. Any future UK orders will be based on that template, not on what came out of the design office in the late 1990s.

If Alstom made a UK gauge version of the Nuevo Pendolino, what could actually change? The UK loading gauge will be just as restrictive, so the basic body design wouldn't be able to change a vast amount. Including a newer version of their Onix traction package is a given, but that's not really a problem for complete multiple units. The same Alstom company is going to build some more 1995/96 stock clones for TfL, something it is able to do because there's fundamentally not a vast amount you can change about the basic Tube train design so it's not going to be that spectacularly difficult to build more of more-or-less the same.

And does Alliance actually have a signed contract with Alstom anyway? When Virgin was talking about buying 21 new baby Pendolinos for the new West Coast franchise, before the franchising fiasco put paid to that idea, no wonder Alstom was interested in a new UK variant - and adding a few more on for an open access operator would have seemed a fine idea. Remember we have yet to see one of Alliance's famed Chinese trains...

Surely, if the ORR has approved services, then that means they have a guarantee from LNWR that they could actually run the things? For the services to fit on the WCML, they need tilting electric trains and there's only one way to get them. It's not like ECML open-access operations where it would be theoretically possible to use IEPs, HSTs, Voyagers, Meridians or Adelantes basically interchangably.

As we know full well, the DfT can and will do whatever it pleases with franchises, whenever it likes. As things currently stand, the shortlisted TPE bidders are probably asking themselves what on earth it is that they are actually being asked to bid to run anyway.

If the TPE bidders planned to introduce (new) Pendolinos on Manchester-Scotland it would make the process of then eventually moving the route over to ICWC easy. Even if that never happens, the idea still has some merit.

You can set up the interior of a train however you like, you can put in as many seats as you like. But unless the doors and vestibules and gangways allow people to get in and out quickly then trains will be slow to load and unload, whether they have two coaches or 10. Just visit Reading and see how long it takes to get an HST back under way again. This will continue to be an issue with 800/801 operations, though it is to be hoped a lot of the Reading commuters can be encouraged to use the fast 387 formations, which will give them a better chance of a seat than on an already busy train arriving from further west.

The IEP spec document makes it quite clear how well the DfT expects the trains to be able to load and unload large quantities of passengers. End doored stock would always be at a disadvantage but there are still ways to make boarding and alighting faster despite this.

You could order bi-mode AT300s for TPE but what do you do with them a few years down the line if the wiring eventually gets sorted out and an operator decides they would much rather have a common fleet of electric units - would a leasing company fund such a bi-mode order in the first place? Remember that a key factor in the lack of dmu orders was doubt about whether there would be enough work left to keep them running throughout their lifetime and earning leasing fees, which is not what the finance people want to hear.

The number of carriages needed for Liverpool-Newcastle/Edinburgh would be small in comparison to the total number of AT300 vehicles in service elsewhere. If they become surplus to requirement on TP North in a decade then they will be able to slot in to any other IEP fleet with ease, just like how HST sets have always been able to find a user. Even if the TP sets had an unusual number of carriages, it would be quite easy to reconfigure them into standard 5/9/10 car sets for use elsewhere. The IEP spec is quite clear that it is expected that it would be possible for TOCs to radically change the interior with ease whenever they need to.

I'm well aware of how this service came to be part of TPE thanks. But we're not talking about the past here, we're talking about the way forward.

DfT has been messing around with the franchise map for two decades now, so I see no reason for them not to have another go, especially when you look at a situation where the TPE Scottish service is now able to use electric traction, is sharing the bulk of its route with Virgin West Coast anyway, and looks a sight more like a long-distance InterCity service than pretty much anything else in the TPE portfolio - while electrification of the North TPE route, which had brought the prospect of being able to deploy a common fleet of electric trains on that route and to Scotland, has now been shunted into a siding for who knows how long.

I don't actually oppose the idea of putting Manchester-Scotland in the ICWC franchise. I'm just trying to say that even if it weren't, it wouldn't be absurd for TP to run them with the same trains.

Electrification on TPE is very dependant on resources available - currently GWML is gobbling resource up, Crossrail will be banging the drum for resource between now and late 2018, Bedford to Corby might not get a sniff until at least 2019, at least another couple of years to get to Leicester. Meanwhile, in the north, construction of Sheffield to Leeds HS2 has begun, the TBM's are munching their way between Manchester Airport and Ardwick and HS2 phase 1 is well underway, paving the way for the missing link between Manchester and Barnsley as a HS line. So perhaps you might get cables up for TPE by 2023 if you ignore the bigger picture of HS2/3, if your a consultant trying to get the BCR to work... Your going to be having big headaches at night !

If 'HS3' is a series of major upgrades and bypasses, then the existing route will still need to be electrified. East of Huddersfield it will need to be electrified for WY suburban services, and electrification to Stalybridge is still going ahead for GM suburban services. Putting up wires for the bit in between isn't some radical development on the scale of building a new line, it's just one way in which the railway is going to incrementally develop and enhance itself. Once the GWML electrification is completed, the TP North line will be much higher on the list of priorities for electrification than most other lines in the country because of how strategic it is, even if it were eventually going to be bypassed by a new line. WCML development isn't planned to stop just because HS2 will relieve it of most of its longer-distance passengers.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
If 'HS3' is a series of major upgrades and bypasses, then the existing route will still need to be electrified.

Regardless, you are still stuck with a six train per hour throttle - at best you may get 8 car trains - it's short sighted.

East of Huddersfield it will need to be electrified for WY suburban services, and electrification to Stalybridge is still going ahead for GM suburban services.

I don't dispute that all lines need electrification, it's a matter of what rolling stock is available and what resource do you have to wire up - notwithstanding that, wiring up doesn't just involve stringing power, you've structures to fix, incursion issues from adjoining roads, you've power supply infrastructure, the signals are practically ripped out and renewed, track changes have to be done before - this all takes time - in particular possessions across 100's of sections and structures - we are realistically looking at more than a decade - factor in the cost of delay and the benefits to costs just don't work - best time to start electrification of TPE North is the day after HS3 opens.

Putting up wires for the bit in between isn't some radical development on the scale of building a new line, it's just one way in which the railway is going to incrementally develop and enhance itself.

WCML has demonstrated such that working on a live line isn't economical which is why we are building a new line instead of upgrading the three North-South mainlines - the same logic applies to TPE North

Once the GWML electrification is completed, the TP North line will be much higher on the list of priorities for electrification than most other lines in the country because of how strategic it is,

TPE ahead of Crossrail and MML ? Nope, not gonna happen

even if it were eventually going to be bypassed by a new line. WCML development isn't planned to stop just because HS2 will relieve it of most of its longer-distance passengers.


Agreed, but as above, best time to do this work is the day after the bulk of passengers move onto HS2/3 leaving the old lines light and easier to work on before they fill up again.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
Regardless, you are still stuck with a six train per hour throttle - at best you may get 8 car trains - it's short sighted.

I'm not arguing that TransPennine electrification is an equivalent to HS3. If it can only take six trains an hour, then if HS3 relieves the long distance passengers then that should be more than sufficient for the remaining travellers if long trains are used.

I don't dispute that all lines need electrification, it's a matter of what rolling stock is available and what resource do you have to wire up - notwithstanding that, wiring up doesn't just involve stringing power, you've structures to fix, incursion issues from adjoining roads, you've power supply infrastructure, the signals are practically ripped out and renewed, track changes have to be done before - this all takes time - in particular possessions across 100's of sections and structures - we are realistically looking at more than a decade - factor in the cost of delay and the benefits to costs just don't work - best time to start electrification of TPE North is the day after HS3 opens.

The E&G is being wired without any great trouble. Yes, the situations are slightly different, but just electrifying and modernising the route isn't going to involve the level of disruption you're talking about. If the 'enhancements' were on the scale of those suggested to be necessary for the north-south lines if HS2 didn't go ahead, then things would be quite different.

WCML has demonstrated such that working on a live line isn't economical which is why we are building a new line instead of upgrading the three North-South mainlines - the same logic applies to TPE North

To a point. Massive upgrades of the existing line are bad. Standard modernisations and reinstatements of extra tracks which used to be there? Not so much.

TPE ahead of Crossrail and MML ? Nope, not gonna happen

Crossrail is the core of the GWML project, so there's no way for it to be finished after the GWML. I don't really know about the MML to be honest. A different plan, focussing on electrifying more around Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield at the same time rather than just doing the MML InterCity route and no more might be a better idea.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
If Alstom made a UK gauge version of the Nuevo Pendolino, what could actually change? The UK loading gauge will be just as restrictive, so the basic body design wouldn't be able to change a vast amount. Including a newer version of their Onix traction package is a given, but that's not really a problem for complete multiple units. The same Alstom company is going to build some more 1995/96 stock clones for TfL, something it is able to do because there's fundamentally not a vast amount you can change about the basic Tube train design so it's not going to be that spectacularly difficult to build more of more-or-less the same.

But if you are going to a new generation, then surely it is just the moment to actually get some useful changes to the design. It's not like the 390 is the greatest intercity train ever built, is it? Bigger windows would be nice for starters, never mind the toilets...

Surely, if the ORR has approved services, then that means they have a guarantee from LNWR that they could actually run the things? For the services to fit on the WCML, they need tilting electric trains and there's only one way to get them. It's not like ECML open-access operations where it would be theoretically possible to use IEPs, HSTs, Voyagers, Meridians or Adelantes basically interchangably.

It's a chicken and egg situation. You're hardly going to go out and sign on the dotted line for some shiny new trains for your shiny new service until you actually know the ORR will let you run it. CAF is just as capable as Alstom of building tilt trains. It is currently supplying a grand total of eight tilt dmus, with three or five cars, to Sardinia, which suggests they know how to make the numbers stack up on a small order. And a certain train builder has turned out more than 500 tilt trains over the years for the 3ft 6in gauge lines in Japan.

The IEP spec document makes it quite clear how well the DfT expects the trains to be able to load and unload large quantities of passengers. End doored stock would always be at a disadvantage but there are still ways to make boarding and alighting faster despite this.

End-door trains can indeed load and unload large quantities of passengers, just a lot more slowly than 1/3, 2/3 doors. And these ways to speed it up would be what? Maybe you could share them with FGW...

The number of carriages needed for Liverpool-Newcastle/Edinburgh would be small in comparison to the total number of AT300 vehicles in service elsewhere. If they become surplus to requirement on TP North in a decade then they will be able to slot in to any other IEP fleet with ease, just like how HST sets have always been able to find a user. Even if the TP sets had an unusual number of carriages, it would be quite easy to reconfigure them into standard 5/9/10 car sets for use elsewhere. The IEP spec is quite clear that it is expected that it would be possible for TOCs to radically change the interior with ease whenever they need to.

Slot into another fleet with ease? You have to get past the Treasury/DfT beancounters first.

HSTs have always been able to find a user? That would be why the former XC sets were laid up between 2002-3 until Project Rio came along - with the buffer-fitted power cars out of use for a lot longer until GC took them - and the leasing companies saw so little future for HSTs at the time that they sold off several sets to First Group. Without the scale of growth in passenger numbers, a lot of the HSTs would have gone under the cutter's torch a long time ago.

if if if - we've had if for years, wiring for Manchester-Leeds ain't gonna happen because HS3 will blow the economic case for "just" six trains per hour out the water with its potential for twice as many, faster longer and bigger loading gauge trains. Similarly with MML, St Pancras to Leicester will happen, North of there will be left to HS2. Time to buy some bi-mode local sets.... Lots of them

And HS3 isn't one big IF? You can have all the 'vision' you like but at the moment that is all it is, unlike the crowds of people using Northern and TPE services right now. We can't wait for politicians' vague fantasies about HS3 to be turned into something more concrete and the pace of HS2 development hardly suggests an HS3 is going to be with us any time soon. Six eight-car trains per hour through the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester corridor would still represent a big boost to capacity and the way to deliver it has been determined - unlike pretty much anything at all to do with HS3.

WCML has demonstrated such that working on a live line isn't economical

Sp please explain what exactly it is that is going on on the GWML and in Scotland right now? Network Rail's project management capabilities may suck at the moment, but I don't think they are quite so bad that it would take a decade to wire Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds.
 
Last edited:
Joined
5 Aug 2011
Messages
779
Yes it will, move the Newcastle-York-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool customers onto HS3 and you've then got space for 4-5 stopping trains of up to six carriages long - think longer term.


Electrification on TPE is very dependant on resources available - currently GWML is gobbling resource up, Crossrail will be banging the drum for resource between now and late 2018, Bedford to Corby might not get a sniff until at least 2019, at least another couple of years to get to Leicester. Meanwhile, in the north, construction of Sheffield to Leeds HS2 has begun, the TBM's are munching their way between Manchester Airport and Ardwick and HS2 phase 1 is well underway, paving the way for the missing link between Manchester and Barnsley as a HS line. So perhaps you might get cables up for TPE by 2023 if you ignore the bigger picture of HS2/3, if your a consultant trying to get the BCR to work... Your going to be having big headaches at night !

Ok Hadyn, so let's assume that HS3 opens sometime between 2033-2040 and that it follows on from HS2 phase 2 and consists of a new route from Manchester Airport station to a tunnel under the Pennines to a Delta junction North of Meadowhall and this route takes all the Transpennine traffic from Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle/Middlesbrough/Hull. These services would be run with classic comparable stock similar to that on HS2.

That then as you say frees up space on the existing Transpennine lines for 4-5 stopping services but what in 2040 will be running these services, the 185/170/171/172 will all be ready for retirement so unless we are still building hundreds of DMU's or Bi-modes for the 30 years there won't be any stock to run any extra services in the north.

However if the Transpennine electrification is restarted and completed in 2023 as you say then that still gives 10 years of electric traction on Transpennine (with new/longer stock to replace 185's) before HS3 opens and any EMU/Bi-mode stock can then operate those stopping services between Manchester and Leeds without the need to build more DMU's to operate those services if the route is not electrified.
 

hibtastic

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2014
Messages
281
Forgive me if this has been answered but regarding TPE offering additional services from Edinburgh in the next franchise as has been discussed in this thread as well as new Scotland to Liverpool services, would this be contingent on new rolling stock.

I would love to see TPE using Class 91 and Mark IVs to run their Manchester to Scotland services once they are freed up on the ECML. Proper first class and intercity stock for the route would be a godsend.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Forgive me if this has been answered but regarding TPE offering additional services from Edinburgh in the next franchise as has been discussed in this thread as well as new Scotland to Liverpool services, would this be contingent on new rolling stock.

The only thing confirmed is the 350/4s will remain with TPE until at least September 2018. All TPE bidders are rumoured to have proposed ordering new bi-mode trains. The additional Edinburgh services from Manchester will be at the expense of some Glasgow services.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hibtastic

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2014
Messages
281
The only thing confirmed is the 350/4s will remain with TPE until at least September 2018. All TPE bidders are rumoured to have proposed ordering new bi-mode trains. The additional Edinburgh services from Manchester will be at the expense of some Glasgow services.

Ah ok thanks. I just think that the 91s and Mk IVs are far from over the hill and would be a significant upgrade on these services. It probably will never happen though.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Ah ok thanks. I just think that the 91s and Mk IVs are far from over the hill and would be a significant upgrade on these services. It probably will never happen though.

Problem is with bidders having to look at portion working options - 91s and MK IVs and portion working wouldn't mix, unless they propose something like 5 or 6 of those and 10 x multiple units which then wouldn't give a consistent fleet for training/maintenance.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
New Edinburgh services (option in the ITT) are from Newcastle (extension of the Liverpool-Newcastle service).
These would need to be diesel/bi-mode in the short term.
Extension from Manchester Airport-Crewe is another option (electric).
No clue yet if these will be taken up.
 

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
New Edinburgh services (option in the ITT) are from Newcastle (extension of the Liverpool-Newcastle service).
These would need to be diesel/bi-mode in the short term.
Extension from Manchester Airport-Crewe is another option (electric).
No clue yet if these will be taken up.
There is no option for Newcastle services to be extended to Edinburgh in the ITT. The stakeholder document does say there is, but all the ITT says is that proposals to introduce direct services between new origin and destination points with significant passenger demand will be regarded to be marked with an exceed score. It makes no specific mention of a Newcastle to Edinburgh service. In any event, Network Rail analysis suggests there are no paths for such a service, even less so if either of the OAO applications along with VTECs franchise spec application are approved.
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
There is no option for Newcastle services to be extended to Edinburgh in the ITT. The stakeholder document does say there is, but all the ITT says is that proposals to introduce direct services between new origin and destination points with significant passenger demand will be regarded to be marked with an exceed score. It makes no specific mention of a Newcastle to Edinburgh service. In any event, Network Rail analysis suggests there are no paths for such a service, even less so if either of the OAO applications along with VTECs franchise spec application are approved.

The stakeholder briefing document allows DfT to give strong hints at what they want bidders to look at without specifically requiring it to be implemented. For instance the East Coast stakeholder briefing stated the following possible options:
 Huddersfield
 Scarborough
 Middlesbrough
 Sunderland (via Newcastle) and
 a new route to Harrogate (via York).

With some of those options being taken up by the winning Stagecoach/Virgin bid.

It sounds like TPE have priority over Open Access bids given the ITT says the following

Bidders must provide paths for:
• 2tph from York to Newcastle, arriving at Newcastle at approximately half-hourly
intervals. Of these:
 1tph shall continue to Edinburgh, calling at Newcastle only;
 1tph shall call at Darlington, and terminate at Newcastle
• A further 1tph departing from York approximately midway between the two
departures mentioned above, calling at Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Alnmouth
(in alternate hours) Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh.
 

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
The stakeholder briefing document allows DfT to give strong hints at what they want bidders to look at without specifically requiring it to be implemented. For instance the East Coast stakeholder briefing stated the following possible options:
 Huddersfield
 Scarborough
 Middlesbrough
 Sunderland (via Newcastle) and
 a new route to Harrogate (via York).

With some of those options being taken up by the winning Stagecoach/Virgin bid.
The difference with the ICEC franchise is those destinations were specifically mentioned as potential destinations in the scope of the remapped franchise in the ITT. Edinburgh via Newcastle is not within the scope of the franchise area in the TPE ITT.

It sounds like TPE have priority over Open Access bids given the ITT says the following
The DfT can say what they like in the ITT. It is not them that authorises the services. Even if they did have priority, Network Rail have made it clear that the industry needs to decide between an additional long distance service or the aspiration for improved local Scotrail services. There is not the capacity around Edinburgh for both.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The difference with the ICEC franchise is those destinations were specifically mentioned as potential destinations in the scope of the remapped franchise in the ITT. Edinburgh via Newcastle is not within the scope of the franchise area in the TPE ITT.

Looking at the TPE ITT document it says the documents issued alongside that document are part of the ITT

This Invitation to Tender, its appendices, all documents issued with and in
connection with it and all clarification questions and responses relevant
thereto (together the “ITT”) are issued by the Department for Transport (the
“Department”)

The previous page lists the other documents which includes the Stakeholder Briefing Document.

The DfT can say what they like in the ITT. It is not them that authorises the services. Even if they did have priority, Network Rail have made it clear that the industry needs to decide between an additional long distance service or the aspiration for improved local Scotrail services. There is not the capacity around Edinburgh for both.

The ORR have been known to reject applications because the number of paths required for a future franchise are not known.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
But if you are going to a new generation, then surely it is just the moment to actually get some useful changes to the design. It's not like the 390 is the greatest intercity train ever built, is it? Bigger windows would be nice for starters, never mind the toilets...

I think there has been some misunderstanding of how different I think a new UK fleet of Pendolinos could and should be. On one level, the possible amount of difference is going to be not particularly large at all, since the very specialised requirements for UK tilting trains means that a lot of decisions are already made for you. However, there could still be some scope for change based on what is now possible vice what was possible in 1997, plus all the knowledge which has been gained from having the existing fleet in service. A new design could have slightly different windows to improve the interior ambience or it could move the CET vents away from the air conditioning so that there's no toilet smell. The sum total of these changes would most likely not be large enough that existing Pendolino operators and maintenance facilities wouldn't be able to add them to their fleet quite easily.

It's a chicken and egg situation. You're hardly going to go out and sign on the dotted line for some shiny new trains for your shiny new service until you actually know the ORR will let you run it. CAF is just as capable as Alstom of building tilt trains. It is currently supplying a grand total of eight tilt dmus, with three or five cars, to Sardinia, which suggests they know how to make the numbers stack up on a small order. And a certain train builder has turned out more than 500 tilt trains over the years for the 3ft 6in gauge lines in Japan.

But trains on Sardinia are normal UIC gauge, so design work for even a tiny fleet for them could be re-used elsewhere. If there's a market for 500 tilt trains at 3ft 6 gauge then that's a pretty big market too, so there would be no affordability problem in designing a train to suit. If those 500 tilting trains are relatively short, then the size of the UK tilting train market and the size of the 3ft 6in tilting train market is going to be approximately the same, and more than large enough to justify a design being made. The total market for extra tilting trains in Britain above and beyond what is already there is quite a bit smaller though.

End-door trains can indeed load and unload large quantities of passengers, just a lot more slowly than 1/3, 2/3 doors. And these ways to speed it up would be what? Maybe you could share them with FGW...

That the IEPs will have powered doors and the door levels will be lower will make a considerable difference to the speed with which people get get on and off. The end-doored IEP design has been intended from the very beginning to cope with the Reading passenger flows of the future, while I don't think the people at BR would have ever thought the Mk3 design would have to cope with the same.

Slot into another fleet with ease? You have to get past the Treasury/DfT beancounters first.

Let's say the DfT beancounters say that it wouldn't be a bad idea to get more trains. Instead of having to order more of them from the manufacturer, they would just be able to lease the then-freed bi-mode TransPennine units. If TPE acquired a custom design from CAF or someone that wasn't used anywhere else, then a lot more work would be involved in moving that fleet to somewhere else.

HSTs have always been able to find a user? That would be why the former XC sets were laid up between 2002-3 until Project Rio came along - with the buffer-fitted power cars out of use for a lot longer until GC took them - and the leasing companies saw so little future for HSTs at the time that they sold off several sets to First Group. Without the scale of growth in passenger numbers, a lot of the HSTs would have gone under the cutter's torch a long time ago.

Yes, and since we've had the scale of passenger growth that we've seen, it has been very easy for operators to take on more HST sets. They've even converted old LHCS Mk3 stock to HST standard to make more and longer HST sets. Had these surplus HSTs been a different type of comparable train, it wouldn't have been trivial to add them to their fleet and so it would have been considerably less efficient.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
But trains on Sardinia are normal UIC gauge, so design work for even a tiny fleet for them could be re-used elsewhere. If there's a market for 500 tilt trains at 3ft 6 gauge then that's a pretty big market too, so there would be no affordability problem in designing a train to suit. If those 500 tilting trains are relatively short, then the size of the UK tilting train market and the size of the 3ft 6in tilting train market is going to be approximately the same, and more than large enough to justify a design being made. The total market for extra tilting trains in Britain above and beyond what is already there is quite a bit smaller though.

Of course you can use the basic design for another order but thus far there haven't been any takers - however CAF still clearly found a way to do the design work for this small fleet and make the contract pay. Unless they were doing it out of charity, which seems unlikely. Hitachi uses modular design concepts, so I should think they could come up with a UK-gauge tilt bodyshell without too much grief if asked. And probably with 1/3, 2/3 door spacings if required. Their rolling stock brochure

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/medialibrary/2012/06/01/0ef095d0/RailPartnershipMay2012.pdf

clearly states that an AT300 series train can be supplied with either what they call 'corner' doors, or 1/3, 2/3 spacings, presumably something like the 395s. So Hitachi may be able to offer TPE bidders both a non-tilt bi-mode train suited to the North TPE core with 1/3, 2/3 doors, plus an electric tilt train with end doors for Scottish services, sharing a lot of common components, which might be a more attractive idea than buying a few babylinos.

That the IEPs will have powered doors and the door levels will be lower will make a considerable difference to the speed with which people get get on and off. The end-doored IEP design has been intended from the very beginning to cope with the Reading passenger flows of the future, while I don't think the people at BR would have ever thought the Mk3 design would have to cope with the same.

The 180s have power doors and while you can close up quicker than slam doors - though there are usually plenty of platform staff at Reading to deal with the HSTs - the actual process of getting people on and off a 180 is scarcely any better than an HST. The IEPs are not going to be any different, given the key constraints are door width and how fast people can move in and out of the coaches on aisles that are one person wide. Whereas a 1/3, 2/3 arrangement features door spaces that are two people wide and offers two directions to go in once inside the coach rather than one which you get with end doors and is clearly a far more suitable arrangement for the core section of TPE North, wherever the train's final destination may be.

Let's say the DfT beancounters say that it wouldn't be a bad idea to get more trains. Instead of having to order more of them from the manufacturer, they would just be able to lease the then-freed bi-mode TransPennine units. If TPE acquired a custom design from CAF or someone that wasn't used anywhere else, then a lot more work would be involved in moving that fleet to somewhere else.

Well I'm afraid all the evidence, with overcrowded trains on TPE, Northern and lots of other parts of the network, is that the beancounters are not at all generous when it comes to providing enough rolling stock for current needs, never mind allowing for growth. And the TPE bidders will have to fight these people tooth and nail to get as much rolling stock as they can, which probably will still turn out not to be enough anyway.

Yes, and since we've had the scale of passenger growth that we've seen, it has been very easy for operators to take on more HST sets. They've even converted old LHCS Mk3 stock to HST standard to make more and longer HST sets. Had these surplus HSTs been a different type of comparable train, it wouldn't have been trivial to add them to their fleet and so it would have been considerably less efficient.

None of which gets us away from the fact that there was a period when quite a lot of HSTs were sat around doing nothing. Unlike your original contention that they have all been working their little socks off without a pause.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top