Rolling stock announcement regarding TPE (updated)

[Bletchleyite]

If I buy a cinema ticket, it reserves a place in a particular showing, but not a particular seat. If I buy a ticket on EasyJet or RyanAir, then I've got a seat on a particular flight, but I don't have a particular one reserved for me.

Actually those are all progressively changing to allocated seating.

In any case those reservations *do not* reserve you a place on the train. If it's full and standing and one more won't fit, you're not getting on - nobody has to get off for you. What it does is restrict you to that service unless it's cancelled (not fitting on would count as cancelled).

DB are much more sensible on this, putting train restriction (Zugbindung) in the ticket's route field.

 

[transmanche]

If I buy a cinema ticket, it reserves a place in a particular showing, but not a particular seat. If I buy a ticket on EasyJet or RyanAir, then I've got a seat on a particular flight, but I don't have a particular one reserved for me.

Notwithstanding that Easyjet and Ryanair are moving to allocated seating, the big difference in those examples is that the total number of tickets sold and the total number of people allowed access will not exceed the number of seats available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Notwithstanding that Easyjet and Ryanair are moving to allocated seating, the big difference in those examples is that the total number of tickets sold and the total number of people allowed access will not exceed the number of seats available.

Though I'm led to believe it is a common tactic in the event of a film being full to book a seat for the wrong film at the right time and sneak in.

 

[northwichcat]

When the new trains arrived they were seen as the magic bullet - they had something to be proud of then. They were modern, accessible and comfortable, they all had 3 coaches whereas they replaced some that had 2, they could do great things in a timetable and there were enough of them.

Had they not suffered the very silly decision to stick the Scotland services in their franchise, many of their problems might not have been.

The original proposal from First/Kelios was 56 x 3 car trains for North TPE, South TPE and Manchester Airport to Cumbria services, with the option to lengthen some trains to 4 cars. That would have worked. However, the SRA decided to reduce the number of new trains to 51 x 3 car and 9 x 2 car (cascaded) but to make TPE run Manchester Airport to Blackpool instead of Northern and later made TPE run Scottish services to allow for Voyagers to freed up to allow for the VHF timetable on the WCML.

On paper the original proposal from First/Kelios seemed to be good, noting that the 3 car 185s have less seats than 3 car 158s and the 158s allowed more flexible formations, so lengthening some 3 car 185s to 4 car 185s would have allowed more flexible formations and services which previously had 3 car 158s to not have had a capacity cut permanently. However, it wasn't to be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From the FTPE Wikipedia article:


Maybe it's fair to say that 6 car trains would be adequate on most services rather than 8... but with this kind of prediction available, why did nobody plan ahead?

Well if you take Pendolino carriage capacities for an 8 car version with a higher proportion of standard class seating you could have:

Carriage A (driving car): 46 standard seats
Carriage B: 62 standard seats
Carriage C: 48 standard seats (plus shop)
Carriage D: 62 standard seats
Carriage E: 76 standard seats
Carriage F: 76 standard seats
Carriage J: 37 First Class seats
Carriage K (driving car): 18 First Class seats

That would give you 370 standard class seats, compared to 308 on a 6 car 185, so ignoring the service enhancements last year 8 car 125mph trains was possibly a good prediction.

As for why no-one planned ahead it's similar to other franchises. Demand has changed a lot since 2004 and TPE like Northern and other franchises has needed to be re-let on revised terms for a while. However, the West Coast fiasco meant everything got pushed back and have pushed potential improvements back by 2-3 years.

 

[ianhr]

As for why no-one planned ahead it's similar to other franchises. Demand has changed a lot since 2004 and TPE like Northern and other franchises has needed to be re-let on revised terms for a while. However, the West Coast fiasco meant everything got pushed back and have pushed potential improvements back by 2-3 years.

But I thought that one of the supposed benefits of privatisation was that private sector management would be more 'demand responsive' than a state run bureaucracy!...........so why have enterprising TPE not taken the initiative to acquire more rolling stock if they have attracted more passengers as a result of their slick marketing? Chiltern seem to have managed to do this!

 

[ainsworth74]

Because they only have a short term deal meaning that no private company wants to invest it's own money as they may well not be able to take advantage of the pay off from that investment. Chiltern on the other hand have a nice long deal (20+ years) which makes it worthwhile investing.

 

[Haydn1971]

so why have enterprising TPE not taken the initiative to acquire more rolling stock if they have attracted more passengers as a result of their slick marketing?

Cynically - TPE are sitting pretty, their trains are rammed full, standing, on the roof, hanging on the sides... Why provide more carriages when the mug passengers are still using their full trains ? Paid £25 plus for an anytime return and can't get a seat, tough, stand in the corner next to the old lady that got her reserved table seat for £5 - the whole system is flawed.

 

[Helvellyn]

But I thought that one of the supposed benefits of privatisation was that private sector management would be more 'demand responsive' than a state run bureaucracy!...........so why have enterprising TPE not taken the initiative to acquire more rolling stock if they have attracted more passengers as a result of their slick marketing? Chiltern seem to have managed to do this!

Chiltern seem to be able to do it because they could be considered to have got their 20 year franchise under franchise model 2.0, i.e. the first reletting under Labour (2001-2005 government) after the 1.0 model under the Conservatives (1992-1997 government). This was supposed to be the next model, where in return for a long term franchise the company taking it on would undertake massive investment. Then after the Railtrack fiasco, and the decision of the SRA to change how it was doing franchises things changed and shorter franchises became the name of the game (before the cash cow model could be said to have come about). It was announced that South West Trains (under Stagecoach) was going to get a 20 year franchise in April 2001, but the SRA scrapped that a year later. SWT were going to rebuild Clapham Junction (moving the station towards Waterloo if I recall to give straight 12-car platforms). This was also when 10-car services on the Windsor side were first mooted - The SWT 450 Desiro order was originally for 100 4-car units (450/0) and 32 5-car units (450/2). This became 110 4-car units with the remaining 120 vehicles of the order diverted to Silverlink/Central Trains as the Class 350/1 fleet. So the whole 458/5 fiasco could have been avoided and I can only imagine what else SWT would have done with with a 20 year franchise.

 

[Starmill]

It clearly states that you have a space not a seat.

Nonsense - as has been pointed out, you cannot reserve a space.

 

[northwichcat]

Because they only have a short term deal meaning that no private company wants to invest it's own money as they may well not be able to take advantage of the pay off from that investment. Chiltern on the other hand have a nice long deal (20+ years) which makes it worthwhile investing.

Additionally with subsided franchises if a franchised operator does better than expected the franchise goes on to 'revenue share' so the subsidy is reduced meaning DfT benefits and the passengers only benefit if DfT decide extra carriages/services should be provided. Northern have been on 'revenue share' more than any other franchised operator despite constant criticism it's the highest subsided franchise let by DfT (which excludes Scotrail, ATW, LO and Merseyrail.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can only imagine what else SWT would have done with with a 20 year franchise.

SWT seem to have exactly the right mix of services for a successful business model so a long term franchise awarded to the right company could potentially be very successful.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But I thought that one of the supposed benefits of privatisation was that private sector management would be more 'demand responsive' than a state run bureaucracy!...........so why have enterprising TPE not taken the initiative to acquire more rolling stock if they have attracted more passengers as a result of their slick marketing? Chiltern seem to have managed to do this!

That was only in franchises mark 1 (1996-2003).
When the SRA took control it had some fixed views ("one operator per London terminus") and issued increasingly prescriptive contracts to franchise winners.
Most of the current problems stem from their 2004-7 phase of franchises, which were very conservative.
Chiltern was the one franchise which beat this system, negotiating a 20-year franchise before the SRA (and the Labour Treasury) put the shackles on (to prevent long term bad deals being agreed).
We keep going round the same circles on franchising today - long or short?
They have a horses for courses approach at the moment (direct awards and 7-10 year franchises).

 

[Clarence Yard]

Put simply, no franchised TOC can invest in rolling stock on its own because it can't afford the full purchase value of the new rolling stock, hence the ROSCOs and leasing.

Also the ROSCOs want guarantees about future use for a 30+ year life asset and usually that means the DfT having to say that it backs the use of it on that franchise. Of course if they do that, any additional net cost falls on the governments books and they have to be happy with that.

So despite them saying otherwise, the DfT always have the final say on rolling stock and when they turned down (more than once) the TPE proposals to go four car, they set the agenda for what has followed.

 

[SprinterMan]

Does anyone know what the sub-leased TPX 156s operate on a Saturday?

Adam

 

[alexl92]

Cynically - TPE are sitting pretty, their trains are rammed full, standing, on the roof, hanging on the sides... Why provide more carriages when the mug passengers are still using their full trains ? Paid £25 plus for an anytime return and can't get a seat, tough, stand in the corner next to the old lady that got her reserved table seat for £5 - the whole system is flawed.

I've often thought that with no proper alternative on the Transpennine services passengers are basically being mugged... why are there not rules in place to prevent complacency where a a company has a monopoly? You can't have two companies running that route because pathing and infrastructure means pax will still just use which ever train turns up at the right time for them.

 

[Buspilot]

Realtime trains are showing a class 158 unit presumably on hire I assume from Northern to TPE, operating some Hull to Manchester Piccadilly TPE services.

Unit appears to be Leeds based and starts the day as the 0634 from Leeds to Piccadilly.

It then operates the 0753, 1141 and 1641 Piccadilly to Leeds services, balanced with 0939, 1439 and 1630 Hull to Piccadilly services.

It returns to Leeds as the 1849 from Hull.

 

[northwichcat]

Realtime trains are showing a class 158 unit presumably on hire I assume from Northern to TPE, operating some Hull to Manchester Piccadilly TPE services.

Unit appears to be Leeds based and starts the day as the 0634 from Leeds to Piccadilly.

It then operates the 0753, 1141 and 1641 Piccadilly to Leeds services, balanced with 0939, 1439 and 1630 Hull to Piccadilly services.

It returns to Leeds as the 1849 from Hull.

RTT shows what services are timed for not what operates them.

 

[Buspilot]

Then why should this one diagram differ from all the other TPE Hull - Piccadilly services?

RTT clearly state

Pathed as Class 158 (Express Sprinter) DMU

for this diagram, whilst all others TPE are

Pathed as Diesel Multiple Unit

.

It is clearly one diagram for a Leeds based class 158, otherwise there is no need for the distinguishing from the other TPE services operating at Hull or Piccadilly.

 

[Eric Wickens]

This service is formed from 5K01 empty stock working from Ardwick to Leeds via the Calder Valley Line.Then runs as 1K01 the 06.34 to Man Picc.
Hope this helps.
Eric Wickens

 

[PHILIPE]

Then why should this one diagram differ from all the other TPE Hull - Piccadilly services?

RTT clearly state for this diagram, whilst all others TPE are .

It is clearly one diagram for a Leeds based class 158, otherwise there is no need for the distinguishing from the other TPE services operating at Hull or Piccadilly.

Timings for all routes by class have not always been published, therefore the next best thing with a suitable speed has to be adopted in such a case.
The times this sort of thing has been posted on the Forum.

 

[158756]

Timings for all routes by class have not always been published, therefore the next best thing with a suitable speed has to be adopted in such a case.
The times this sort of thing has been posted on the Forum.

Services which normally use 170s and 168s (e.g Chiltern, XC,Scotland) usually show timed for 100mph express sprinter on RTT, though such a thing obviously doesn't exist. So I'd guess the times posted above correlate with the old North TPE 170 diagram (there's also a few of them on South TPE). Presumably 185s can keep these timings so there's no need to bother changing them.

 

[Domh245]

Then why should this one diagram differ from all the other TPE Hull - Piccadilly services?

RTT clearly state for this diagram, whilst all others TPE are .

It is clearly one diagram for a Leeds based class 158, otherwise there is no need for the distinguishing from the other TPE services operating at Hull or Piccadilly.

It also says that it is timed for 100mph max, whereas genuine 158 workings are timed for 90mph max. Any 158 timed for 100mph is a turbostar of sorts, so as suggested, it will be a case of an existing 170 diagram not being retimed for 1 185 - not that it matters.

 

[Haydn1971]

That's a fair point, I seem to recall the 170's showed up at 158 times paths last year when I used to catch the 6am from Meadowhall.

 

[FordFocus]

Trains maybe timed at 90mph instead of 100mph for performance reasons. Some services are timed at 75mph instead of 90 or 100mph if there is a unit swap to a lower speed unit as it will still keep time.

No need to get excited whether it's a 158 on hire to TPE.

 

[Starmill]

Does anyone know why the 1546 from Manchester Pic to Blackpool now leaves a minute earlier and skips Salford Crescent and Buckshaw Parkway? Is it because they're crappy 156s or because of the tunnel works? It's a double 156, rammed, and late due to extended dwell times... who could have predicted that

 

[northwichcat]

Does anyone know why the 1546 from Manchester Pic to Blackpool now leaves a minute earlier and skips Salford Crescent and Buckshaw Parkway? Is it because they're crappy 156s or because of the tunnel works? It's a double 156, rammed, and late due to extended dwell times... who could have predicted that

The 156 operated services are timetabled to take a few minutes longer than the same services when they were operated by 185s and it's not temporary because of the tunnel works.

 

[Starmill]

I could have sworn that service didn't used to skip Buckshaw Parkway though.

I also notice the 1645 is a double 165, when I'm sure it used to be a double 185! Hmm!

 

[childwallblues]

I could have sworn that service didn't used to skip Buckshaw Parkway though.

I also notice the 1645 is a double 165, when I'm sure it used to be a double 185! Hmm!

156 even

 

[northwichcat]

I also notice the 1645 is a double 165, when I'm sure it used to be a double 185! Hmm!

Yes. The DfT and TPE Press Releases conventionally omitted that while most Manchester Airport-Preston services were getting more capacity, some would see less capacity. The same with replacing 170s with 185s on Hull services - they mentioned the off-peak 2 car 170 working would be replaced by a 3 car 185 but not that the 4 car 170 workings would also be replaced by 3 car 185s.

 

[Starmill]

156 even

Sorry, of course.

Jcollins - precisely. The 1638 from Leeds to Hull used to be 2x170, now 1x185. Used it a couple of times before and after, all with a reserved seat but it is just SO packed now between Leeds and Selby that you are lucky to get on let alone find your reserved seat. It's a bit of a joke really. The only time you can travel comfortably is very early on weekend mornings. Trains in the cores at almost all other times of the day and week are at capacity or exceed it. With rolling stock quality going down, fares marching endlessly higher on already uncompetitive bases and no new capacity on the horizon. How long can this go on for?

 

[Thomas6187]

The 156 operated services are timetabled to take a few minutes longer than the same services when they were operated by 185s and it's not temporary because of the tunnel works.

It is a temporary alteration because of the tunnel work, as the it will start stopping at both Salford and Buckshaw after the 4th October, when full service restarts

1N65 Manchester Airport-Blackpool N, Oct