Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

[jimm]

Jimm - How exactly would loading/unloading be slower using a longer train but one with end doors? The only reason I can think of is if passengers all congregate near the same doors which is an easy problem to solve.

If it's that easy, why do people still bunch up around particular parts of platforms, as they have done since time immemorial? Go to Reading and look at how people behave there at the super new station where the bridge is well up towards the western end of the platforms.

It would be lovely to think that everyone will dutifully spread themselves out evenly along a platform, but they don't, no matter how many signs there are or announcements are made. At Oxford passengers towards London always cluster under the canopy near the barriers, no matter how many announcements are made that standard class coaches on an HST are beyond the footbridge - there are also notices written on the platform surface. Maybe people behave differently in Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester, but I doubt it...

If new trains were bi-modes, which seems almost certain, then they'll need all the components of an electric train like the transformer. The AT300 design puts the pantograph and transformer in the driving vehicles, leaving no space for an engine. The remaining carriages then have to have more powerful engines to compensate compared to the other post-privatisation DEMUs, which all have one engine per carriage. That each carriage is 2-3m longer won't help either. If the engineers at Hitachi find it possible to use a smaller engine then I'm sure they'll use that instead.

Would it be more of an operational liability to not be able to take on as many new carriages? The ideal situation is that the TPE bidders can get a train manufacturer to order the perfect train for TP North - 125mph capable on electric power, capable of matching a 185 over the Pennines on diesel power and with wide gangways so that it works well in the core. Failing that, they'll have to make a decision and I'm trying to argue that in the light of the situation, the least bad solution is to get more carriages even if they're not ideally suited to the route. These less-than-ideal trains should then be designed internally to minimise the effects of the door layout, since the internal layout can make a difference to dwell times even with end doors.

The TPE bidders are planning on the basis that TP North will not be electrified within the term of the franchise.

I was wrong to say that they've 'always' been able to find a user, then. However, when a user did come knocking, as has happened more recently as passenger numbers have soared and the short new trains have proved to be inadequate, it was easy for them to add the HSTs into their fleet since all their staff and equipment were already ready to handle them.

If you have to order more trains than are required in the medium-long term for the interest of the short term, the least bad way of going about it is to buy the same model as is used elsewhere. That means the costs to the TOCs of adding them to their fleet in future are minimised. It's like how the ROSCOs did speculative orders for Turbostars back when they were being built. Even if they didn't immediately have a user identified, the ROSCOs knew that they would be able to find a user eventually without any major hassle. They wouldn't have gone and bought a completely or substantially different model speculatively because they knew they would have had much more difficulty then getting it leased out.

On the ECML, MML and GWML, 5 car sets can be doubled to use up the full length of the platforms available. 5 car sets on TP North would just waste the platform lengths available (after works at Huddersfield are completed) because the maximum length is somewhere between 7 and 8 carriages, and the minimum length of an AT300 is 5 carriages. If Hitachi whip up a bi-mode 125mph AT200 then there's nothing at all wrong with ordering four-car sets, since they could be doubled to efficiently use the platform space and then reduce operational costs off-peak.

The open-access operators get by with short trains because they aren't allowed to call at the major market stations which make longer trains profitable.

No one knows if we're talking an AT300 or AT200 variant potentially being offered by Hitachi and in any case, the Class 185 is a notorious lardbutt of a train, so a four-car aluminium-bodied bi-mode unit will likely carry rather less of a weight penalty than might at first appear to be the case if you are just going to rely on counting the number of coaches.

Nor am I aware of there being any reason you can't have a four-car AT300, the DfT just happened to specify five as the minimum for an IEP. There are certainly four-car A-Trains in use in South Korea and the AT200 can be built in any formation from three-car to 12-car.

I'd agree entirely that what is needed is something that can hit a decent speed under the wires and climb well on diesel but I'm afraid if you end up with end doors, even if on part of a train fleet, they will always be a liability in the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester section, unless you are suggesting carving out huge end vestibules, because there really is nothing you can do about long aisles inside coaches that only one person can move up and down at a time and that are blocked as soon as someone stops at a seat so they can put a bag on a rack or take off a coat, etc. And if the priority is to funnel as many trains through each hour as you can, having even one that needs an extra minute or two at each stop - and likely more at the key stations - can pose a performance problem.

FGW adding more HSTs to its fleet was a bit more complicated than short new trains being inadequate. Their issue with the 180s was rather more to do with the reliability problems, not that there wasn't suitable work for them, as they are admirably suited to the Cotswold Line and contra-peak jobs they are currently used on. FGW wanted something that was a known quantity and could run for a few more years as a reliable stopgap until the IEP turned up - which, of course, was meant to be a lot sooner than 2017.

I don't think comparisons with a few very modest speculative orders for Turbostars is helpful comparison when, if you are talking about AT300s, it is a specialised express unit, rather than a go-anywhere dmu which was pretty much guaranteed to find customers for the long term - and there is a limit to how many such express trains will be needed once all the 800/801/AT300s already on order are delivered. I repeat, without guarantees of long-term use, getting the finance to build anything in the first place will be a big problem, which is why dmu building has been at a standstill.

If you are talking about coupling up/splitting HT/GC services at Doncaster, that is an admirable theory but it would depend on them being able to get their trains in and out of there at the same time. Given how hard it was to path GC's West Riding services between Doncaster and Bradford amid the existing services, i wouldn't fancy trying it with enhanced TPE North and Calder Valley services. And since when have York (served by GC) and Doncaster (served by both) not been among the major market stations on the ECML?

 

[pemma]

If it's that easy, why do people still bunch up around particular parts of platforms, as they have done since time immemorial? Go to Reading and look at how people behave there at the super new station where the bridge is well up towards the western end of the platforms.

It would be lovely to think that everyone will dutifully spread themselves out evenly along a platform, but they don't, no matter how many signs there are or announcements are made. At Oxford passengers towards London always cluster under the canopy near the barriers, no matter how many announcements are made that standard class coaches on an HST are beyond the footbridge - there are also notices written on the platform surface. Maybe people behave differently in Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester, but I doubt it...

It works effectively on Merseyrail where all the PIS displays give the length of the next train. It would be easy to put in to PIS systems whether TPE services are 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8 car formations but it's not been done.

Maybe Liverpool commuters are smarter than commuters down South? Although, I'm not sure what the relevance of London commuter routes is given North TPE services are very different with no real peak flow and counter-peak flow. Commuters use North TPE to arrive in Manchester and Leeds from both directions, which is probably why Passenger Focus found that seat occupancy level is higher on North TPE than London Overground.

 

[Class 170101]

Could it be a possibility that the XC Voyagers would move to TPE as their lease expires on XC (around 2019 I believe) leaving XC with a hole to fill in terms of Rolling Stock which in the short term is likely to be only HSTs?

 

[D365]

Could it be a possibility that the XC Voyagers would move to TPE as their lease expires on XC (around 2019 I believe) leaving XC with a hole to fill in terms of Rolling Stock which in the short term is likely to be only HSTs?

Can't imagine they would provide many more seats than a Class 185, if that's what you mean.

 

[ainsworth74]

No Voyagers would be a terrible choice to move to TPE. Not enough capacity and not at all suited to services where there are heavy commuter flows.

Can't imagine they would provide many more seats than a Class 185, if that's what you mean.

I believe they would provide less.

 

[pemma]

No Voyagers would be a terrible choice to move to TPE. Not enough capacity and not at all suited to services where there are heavy commuter flows.

I believe they would provide less.

I recall when 185s were introduced on Scottish services a claim of them having 'only 5 less standard class seats than 4 car Voyagers was made. ' Unless the amount of First Class seating on the 4 car Voyagers is reduced then the reverse would be true for replacing 185s with 4 car Voyagers. The 4 car Voyagers would have quite a bit of additional FC seating if it wasn't reduced.

 

[jimm]

It works effectively on Merseyrail where all the PIS displays give the length of the next train. It would be easy to put in to PIS systems whether TPE services are 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8 car formations but it's not been done.

Maybe Liverpool commuters are smarter than commuters down South? Although, I'm not sure what the relevance of London commuter routes is given North TPE services are very different with no real peak flow and counter-peak flow. Commuters use North TPE to arrive in Manchester and Leeds from both directions, which is probably why Passenger Focus found that seat occupancy level is higher on North TPE than London Overground.

It may work just fine with what is to a large degree a captive audience, such as Merseyrail commuters, but many other routes have a far more varied passenger mix, with a lot of occasional travellers who don't know the stations, the type of trains, where the stopping points on the platforms are, etc.

Plenty of station screens display details such as 'first class at the rear', SWT gives formations, BR InterCity and Virgin had/have colour-coded zones on platforms. All sorts of things have been tried but the fact is no one has hit on a magic bullet solution that distributes people evenly.

Unless things have changed much recently there has always been a more pronounced flow from Huddersfield to Leeds and back in the peaks than in the Manchester direction but a line connecting up two major centres with another substantial place in between is always going to be used differently from a London-type situation with a flow in and then back out. And even in the Thames Valley there are significant numbers of people travelling west into both Reading and Oxford in the mornings and out the other way in the evenings, with the Class 180 on the 06.52 from Paddington to Great Malvern often full and standing in standard class between Didcot and Oxford.

 

[Haydn1971]

The ideal situation is that the TPE bidders can get a train manufacturer to order the perfect train for TP North - 125mph capable on electric power, capable of matching a 185 over the Pennines on diesel power and with wide gangways so that it works well in the core.

Sold ! What time can you deliver the units tomorrow morning ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be lovely to think that everyone will dutifully spread themselves out evenly along a platform, but they don't, no matter how many signs there are or announcements are made.

It would be lovely if the trains actually stopped in the same position every time - I know where the train usually stops, but in an end door unit, the train stopping 5m short or long can be really annoying for door access

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could it be a possibility that the XC Voyagers would move to TPE as their lease expires on XC (around 2019 I believe) leaving XC with a hole to fill in terms of Rolling Stock which in the short term is likely to be only HSTs?

If another TOC was to grab them, wouldn't it be better off being Virgin, to strengthen as needed some of their services?

 

[47802]

If another TOC was to grab them, wouldn't it be better off being Virgin, to strengthen as needed some of their services?

Why would Voyagers go to TPE, that's nonsense any new TPE bi-mode is likely to be ready for service by 2019, in any case given the late date in XC franchise renewal with regard to 2020 compliance I think we can assume that the medium term rolling stock strategy for XC will be decided by the DFT

 

[jimm]

It would be lovely if the trains actually stopped in the same position every time - I know where the train usually stops, but in an end door unit, the train stopping 5m short or long can be really annoying for door access

Absolutely, go to Oxford and watch a week's worth of the 17.32 departure to Great Malvern, worked by a Class 180, which uses the north end of platform 2 to allow the following XC train, due out at 17.36, to enter the platform behind it under permissive working rules to minimise any delays and separate the FGW passengers from those wanting the XC train. I believe the standing instruction to drivers is to stop the 180 up at the end of the platform but some pull up short at the 9/10 car stop marker instead. It is a lottery from one day to the next and certainly does nothing to help with punctuality as people move up and down and back again trying to get themselves near a door. And not necessarily the wisest sort of spanner to throw into the works at Leeds or Manchester in an evening peak.

 

[modernrail]

I have caught TPE trains for many many reasons over the years:

- with my family to go shopping in Leeds from Huddersfield or on day trips to York;
- from Huddersfield to Leeds and Manchester during early drinking days! Often a later night service.
- from Huddersfield to Leeds for work;
- to Manchester airport for travel;
- from Liverpool to Huddersfield when at University;
- From Leeds to Manchester and Liverpool when commuting, attending meetings;
- More recently, from Liverpool to Leeds on the new express when I have meetings in the north. I tend to do a loop from London to Liverpool, then across to Leeds, then back down south.
- To get to a series of east coast destinations from ECML connections, particularly Middlesborough, again for work.

I have used every class of train, in every configuration, with and without a bike, luggage, horse etc, with and without groups of friends and family.

If we are going down the bi-mode route, the ideal TP configuration for me would be a 6 car (or longer) train with end doors on three end carriages (1 of which would be first class) and then the middle three would have doors at 1/3 and 2/3. All reservations for longer distance travel would be in the end door carriages. There would be no reservations possible in the middle three carriages, or at least 2 of them.

Longer distance facilities, such as toilets, would be located towards the ends of the train.

I could see this configuration being useful on other services as well, for instance Manchester to north Wales.

Where possible, trains would stop to park the high capacity bit next to the entrance to the platform.

I think this would give the best configuration for different types of users, whilst minimising dwell times and stopping the silly situation you have now on many trains where many of the seats are reserved throughout meaning there is nowhere for 20 minute commuters to sit.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I have caught TPE trains for many many reasons over the years:

- with my family to go shopping in Leeds from Huddersfield or on day trips to York;
- from Huddersfield to Leeds and Manchester during early drinking days! Often a later night service.
- from Huddersfield to Leeds for work;
- to Manchester airport for travel;
- from Liverpool to Huddersfield when at University;
- From Leeds to Manchester and Liverpool when commuting, attending meetings;
- More recently, from Liverpool to Leeds on the new express when I have meetings in the north. I tend to do a loop from London to Liverpool, then across to Leeds, then back down south.
- To get to a series of east coast destinations from ECML connections, particularly Middlesborough, again for work.

I have used every class of train, in every configuration, with and without a bike, luggage, horse etc, with and without groups of friends and family.

If we are going down the bi-mode route, the ideal TP configuration for me would be a 6 car (or longer) train with end doors on three end carriages (1 of which would be first class) and then the middle three would have doors at 1/3 and 2/3. All reservations for longer distance travel would be in the end door carriages. There would be no reservations possible in the middle three carriages, or at least 2 of them.

Longer distance facilities, such as toilets, would be located towards the ends of the train.

I could see this configuration being useful on other services as well, for instance Manchester to north Wales.

Where possible, trains would stop to park the high capacity bit next to the entrance to the platform.

I think this would give the best configuration for different types of users, whilst minimising dwell times and stopping the silly situation you have now on many trains where many of the seats are reserved throughout meaning there is nowhere for 20 minute commuters to sit.

I too had wondered whether a "mixed format" door layout would work. In theory there's no reason why it shouldn't and likewise no reason for vehicles to be symmetrical (444s for example). However on TPE services there's no "correct" orientation of sets with relation to which end first-class is at, which isn't a major problem with 3-car 185s, it would be with the design you've suggested. Especially as you're effectively reintroducing a 3rd class by splitting standard...

 

[pemma]

Where possible, trains would stop to park the high capacity bit next to the entrance to the platform.

Can't see that working personally.

For the high capacity to be near the platform entrance at terminus stations it would need to be both at the front and end of the trains not the middle. Then at intermediate stations like Huddersfield stopping the train so the front/end is near the platform entrance would either mean short trains or the train not fitting on the platform.

Then what about passengers with limited mobility who are making longer journeys? They'll want to board via the nearest door and sit as close to the door as they can.

My first journey on a 377 was one with a mixed standard interior and I finished up sitting in a carriage with 2+2 seating without even realising other carriages had 3+2 seating until I got off. If I'd been making a long journey and the reverse had applied I wouldn't have been very happy.

 

[WatcherZero]

Biggest improvement the next owner of TPE could make, having the first class compartments at one end of the train and not in the middle splitting standard class in two.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Biggest improvement the next owner of TPE could make, having the first class compartments at one end of the train and not in the middle splitting standard class in two.

To be fair, the standard class section between the cab and first consists solely of the accessible toilet and a few tip-up seats (oh, and a couple of foldaway tables!). The only other place first could be is at the opposite end of the train in what is currently the DMS vehicle. If it was there the maximum first-class capacity of a single 185 would be 9 seats (assuming 2+1 seating) with no disabled first-class provision.

Or were you referring to the 350s?

 

[Class 170101]

If another TOC was to grab them, wouldn't it be better off being Virgin, to strengthen as needed some of their services?

In theory yes but they wouldn't be able to offer a ROSCO a long term deal at the moment until the new WCML franchise is signed.

 

[WatcherZero]

To be fair, the standard class section between the cab and first consists solely of the accessible toilet and a few tip-up seats (oh, and a couple of foldaway tables!). The only other place first could be is at the opposite end of the train in what is currently the DMS vehicle. If it was there the maximum first-class capacity of a single 185 would be 9 seats (assuming 2+1 seating) with no disabled first-class provision.

Or were you referring to the 350s?

Both, the 350's have 1 and 1/3 standard, 2/3 first, 2 standard.

 

[pemma]

If another TOC was to grab them, wouldn't it be better off being Virgin, to strengthen as needed some of their services?

Virgin proposed off-loading all their Voyagers and replacing them with a combination of short Pendolinos and Diesel-Electric locomotives not that long ago. Although, if the First West Coast franchise had gone ahead the existing Voyagers would have been retained and been complimented by new build electric trains from CAF for Birmingham-Scotland.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Both, the 350's have 1 and 1/3 standard, 2/3 first, 2 standard.

In any case, the current setup on 185s whilst not perfect, is probably the best it can be to ensure full access to both first and standard. I can't comment on the 350s though.

 

[ScotTrains]

The 185's and 350's are not suitable for the long distance Scottish routes. The doors should be at the ends of the coaches. Seats should align with windows. There should be more luggage space and catering facilities, WiFi, thicker comfier seats, etc. Also First class should always be at the end of the coach. Having standard class at both sides means you will end up with standard passengers walking through looking for seats/going to the toilet. It becomes VERY annoying when you've paid extra to travel First class. Personally I wish Virgin could run the Scotland to Manchester services. Even a voyager would be better than those horrid 350's!

 

[hibtastic]

The 185's and 350's are not suitable for the long distance Scottish routes. The doors should be at the ends of the coaches. Seats should align with windows. There should be more luggage space and catering facilities, WiFi, thicker comfier seats, etc. Also First class should always be at the end of the coach. Having standard class at both sides means you will end up with standard passengers walking through looking for seats/going to the toilet. It becomes VERY annoying when you've paid extra to travel First class. Personally I wish Virgin could run the Scotland to Manchester services. Even a voyager would be better than those horrid 350's!

Generally I am with you on that but there is more luggage space on a 350 than a Voyager, at least bigger bags can fit in the overhead racks. Apart from that though, I prefer the Voyagers with their nice big windows.

I am hoping the winning TPE bidder has something good up their sleeves for the Manchester / Liverpool to Scotland services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It works effectively on Merseyrail where all the PIS displays give the length of the next train. It would be easy to put in to PIS systems whether TPE services are 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8 car formations but it's not been done.

TPE already do this - I have noticed it at Carlisle and Lancaster recently where the information screens will say something like "8 coach train - formation A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H" for an 8-car 350.

 

[pemma]

TPE already do this - I have noticed it at Carlisle and Lancaster recently where the information screens will say something like "8 coach train - formation A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H" for an 8-car 350.

Those are Virgin managed stations. At TPE managed stations you just get told where First Class is located.

 

[pemma]

Apparently talks are being undertaken for the sublease of the remaining 4 x 170/3s to remain with TPE until the end of the franchise and replacements would then be arranged as part of the next franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPE already do this - I have noticed it at Carlisle and Lancaster recently where the information screens will say something like "8 coach train - formation A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H" for an 8-car 350.

As do pretty much all the TOCs darn Sarf, but only to the extent of "this train is formed of 12 coaches" or similar, and updating it and flagging a note on it in the case of an unexpected short-form. As the same PIS is used in most places around the UK now, not putting it in is simply sheer laziness.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair, the standard class section between the cab and first consists solely of the accessible toilet and a few tip-up seats (oh, and a couple of foldaway tables!). The only other place first could be is at the opposite end of the train in what is currently the DMS vehicle. If it was there the maximum first-class capacity of a single 185 would be 9 seats (assuming 2+1 seating) with no disabled first-class provision.

It could easily be both sides of the end door like it is on Class 321s, with a partition in place between the two classes. LM 350s do not have First Class wheelchair provision, and this is probably a waste of time anyway because it's not as if the wheelchair user gets to sit in a wider seat, and the other aspects of the service could be provided in another part of the train. (Does RVAR require it even on trains with very little First Class provision? It seems ill-advised because unlike Standard wheelchair space it isn't likely to be used for standing when no wheelchair is on board).

Having a part of the train beyond it with one of the two toilets as on the 185s is appalling design, as it basically to all intents and purposes leaves one toilet for 2.5 coaches of Standard passengers. Even the 350 layout, with a toilet on each side and the First Class in the middle of one of the middle coaches, is better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 185's and 350's are not suitable for the long distance Scottish routes. The doors should be at the ends of the coaches. Seats should align with windows.

If I might interject, they almost all do on 185s, and mostly do on 350s except some of the airline seats in the middle part of each coach.

 

[D365]

Apparently talks are being undertaken for the sublease of the remaining 4 x 170/3s to remain with TPE until the end of the franchise and replacements would then be arranged as part of the next franchise.

If self-powered replacements are required, could an option be added to the 120 new-build carriages for Northern?

 

[pemma]

If self-powered replacements are required, could an option be added to the 120 new-build carriages for Northern?

One problem - how are they going to be delivered by next April which is when the 170/3s will go if the sublease is extended?

 

[D365]

One problem - how are they going to be delivered by next April which is when the 170/3s will go if the sublease is extended?

D-Trains!

Sorry, for some reason I thought that the franchise had been extended beyond 2016

 

[pemma]

D-Trains!

Sorry, for some reason I thought that the franchise had been extended beyond 2016

It's April 2016 but there is an option for a further 10 month extension if there's a delay in the new franchise starting for whatever reason.

The Northern Direct Award was due to end in Feb 2016 so the option of a further extension will be taken up for Northern due to the delays in getting the ITT for the next franchise published.

 

[swt_passenger]

As do pretty much all the TOCs darn Sarf, but only to the extent of "this train is formed of 12 coaches" or similar, and updating it and flagging a note on it in the case of an unexpected short-form.

XC services calling at SWT stations get rather different treatment to their own EMUs, with the exact formation displayed, something like this:

"This train is formed of 4 coaches. Train formation F,D,C,A. First class at rear, Cycles and large luggage in Coach D."

Looks like if someone puts a bit of thought into it anything is possible...