TPE 'Abysmal' Performance

[dave59]

Why would they want 802's for the WCML? the 802 is a bi mode.

 

[6026KingJohn]

Why would they want 802's for the WCML? the 802 is a bi mode.

To replace Voyagers on Holyhead and Shrewsbury services, eliminating "diesel under the wires"

 

[sprinterguy]

Why would they want 802's for the WCML? the 802 is a bi mode.

For fleet commonality, and it may also offer flexibility during periods of engineering works or incidents where overhead power is isolated.

To replace Voyagers on Holyhead and Shrewsbury services, eliminating "diesel under the wires"

That's for Avanti West Coast though, not Transpennine Express which is being discussed here.

 

[Starmill]

Travelling on a Pacer or a 156 through the Hope Valley for an hour?! You must have to pack a blanket and a flask in your rucksack surely.

It was very rare for the Northern services to be too full to board, but it was pretty much a daily occurance on TPE services. Even now it's common for a 6 car set to be working a service with 3 locked out of use, and passengers crushed into the aisles and doorways in just half of the train.

 

[Seehof]

The good people of Scarborough have suffered many cancellations until they changed the timetable recently. Now there are major issues with the noise the 68s make.

 

[Starmill]

For fleet commonality, and it may also offer flexibility during periods of engineering works or incidents where overhead power is isolated.

Would that be worth spending a vast amount of money on?

 

[sprinterguy]

Would that be worth spending a vast amount of money on?

Would twelve 802s be that much more expensive than twelve 397s? Being discussed with the benefit of perfect hindsight here of course, given the service entry delays that have affected the CAF fleets since the order was placed.

 

[Starmill]

Another problem that is common is that the gap between what TPE lead people to expect and what they actually provide is quite large.

For example, I was on a train recently one Saturday morning where I had to stand in the area around the toilet at the front, just from Piccadilly to Victoria for onward connection luckily. There was a group of about 12 ladies on their way to Newcastle for a party.

What I think people need to understand is, when they go online and pay a couple of hundred quid for a big group booking for Manchester to Newcastle, they're going to expect broadly the same sort of thing that Manchester to London passengers will expect. They will expect as the very minimum to be able to get them and all of their luggage onto the train, store it somewhere and then all sit down together in reserved seats for them. Bear in mind too that we're talking almost three hours here. They will also expect to be able to use the toilets and buy a cup of tea.

The previous train, the Redcar Central service, had been cancelled. Passengers had been advised to catch the Newcastle service as there wasn't a suitable alternative from Manchester Airport or Manchester Piccadilly. The train was formed of 3 coaches, and was running late. It hadn't had any reservations placed out, and it was already full of passengers from Manchester Airport. A huge crowd squashed in including me at Manchester Piccadilly, and I could hear the group of ladies having a big argument with the various different people who had come from Manchester Airport who were occupying their booked seats. The ladies were stood in the aisle holding their suitcases, with no space for them in any of the racks only only one or two had got to sit down, and spread out.

Unsurprisingly this caused a lot of conflict. Several of them got very angry and some were in tears. It was also very awkward for everyone else. A group of them came through to the driver's cab and started banging on the door and shouting 'hello'. It wasn't difficult to see why they were so unhappy at the prospect of most of them having to stand for almost 3 hours and not be able to sit together.

Of course, the driver was busy driving the train and couldn't help, so they eventually made an announcement asking them to stop banging on the door and to seek assistance from the guard at the other end of the train. It wasn't clear what was going to happen there because the train was so busy that the guard would have struggled to get through. The group would have had an alternative train from Manchester Victoria to Newcastle but they didn't get off, unsurprisingly as their tickets would have not been valid on an alternative train without permission (or even if they were, they thought they weren't).

It's hard to see how they could possibly have come away with an acceptable view of the company's services, and they were only very slightly delayed. Ironically they would have probably been better off financially if their train had been cancelled, because then at least they would have had a right to some compensation. Of course, most people here probably just treat that as normal for TPE, a lot of their staff seem to have internalised the idea that it's normal for customers to experience what they did, and by extension get quite annoyed when customers complain.

The lesson is that you must meet minimum expectation on 99% of journeys, with a clean on time train, seats reserved as booked, the booked formation and advertised catering service. It goes without saying that the temperature needs to be acceptable, there needs to be enough space to store bags and the toilets need to be in clean working order. If you get any one of these things wrong it doesn't matter how good anything else was or how much cash you spent leasing the train, you'll probably get a junk customer service score.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Would that be worth spending a vast amount of money on?

Yes. There would be savings on a single fleet too.

 

[Starmill]

Would twelve 802s be that much more expensive than twelve 397s? Being discussed with the benefit of perfect hindsight here of course, given the service entry delays that have affected the CAF fleets since the order was placed.

Yes. There would be savings on a single fleet too.

The cost of replacing the lease on the 397s would be astronomically expensive and you've identified very tiny savings of times when there's no power to the overhead wires and a small percentage of maintenance economy.

At the time, there was a compulsion to order stock that would be available for delivery sooner than any more 802s were.

 

[hibtastic]

Things are slowly getting better. I believe there are 11 Nova 1s and 4 Nova 3s out daily now which has made a huge difference. Many South Transpennine Routes are now 6 car 185s, as are alot more Picc to Hull services.

I travelled on both the Nova 1 and Nova 3 to Liverpool last week. Excellent trains.

 

[6026KingJohn]

For fleet commonality, and it may also offer flexibility during periods of engineering works or incidents where overhead power is isolated.

That's for Avanti West Coast though, not Transpennine Express which is being discussed here.

Sorry - not thinking straight. I blame old age and the fact I live south of Crewe and when I see WCML... (let's just say I don't immediately think that far north - even when reading a TPE post)

 

[2L70]

Another problem that is common is that the gap between what TPE lead people to expect and what they actually provide is quite large.

For example, I was on a train recently one Saturday morning where I had to stand in the area around the toilet at the front, just from Piccadilly to Victoria for onward connection luckily. There was a group of about 12 ladies on their way to Newcastle for a party.

What I think people need to understand is, when they go online and pay a couple of hundred quid for a big group booking for Manchester to Newcastle, they're going to expect broadly the same sort of thing that Manchester to London passengers will expect. They will expect as the very minimum to be able to get them and all of their luggage onto the train, store it somewhere and then all sit down together in reserved seats for them. Bear in mind too that we're talking almost three hours here. They will also expect to be able to use the toilets and buy a cup of tea.

The previous train, the Redcar Central service, had been cancelled. Passengers had been advised to catch the Newcastle service as there wasn't a suitable alternative from Manchester Airport or Manchester Piccadilly. The train was formed of 3 coaches, and was running late. It hadn't had any reservations placed out, and it was already full of passengers from Manchester Airport. A huge crowd squashed in including me at Manchester Piccadilly, and I could hear the group of ladies having a big argument with the various different people who had come from Manchester Airport who were occupying their booked seats. The ladies were stood in the aisle holding their suitcases, with no space for them in any of the racks only only one or two had got to sit down, and spread out.

Unsurprisingly this caused a lot of conflict. Several of them got very angry and some were in tears. It was also very awkward for everyone else. A group of them came through to the driver's cab and started banging on the door and shouting 'hello'. It wasn't difficult to see why they were so unhappy at the prospect of most of them having to stand for almost 3 hours and not be able to sit together.

Of course, the driver was busy driving the train and couldn't help, so they eventually made an announcement asking them to stop banging on the door and to seek assistance from the guard at the other end of the train. It wasn't clear what was going to happen there because the train was so busy that the guard would have struggled to get through. The group would have had an alternative train from Manchester Victoria to Newcastle but they didn't get off, unsurprisingly as their tickets would have not been valid on an alternative train without permission (or even if they were, they thought they weren't). Of course, most people here probably just treat that as normal for TPE, a lot of their staff seem to have internalised the idea that it's normal for customers to experience what they did, and by extension get quite annoyed when customers complain.

From the TPE staff I know they’re as fed up as everyone else with it all. Afaik a 6 car requires 2 Guards, often there might not be two to save money so they run as a 3 vice 6.

 

[SuperNova]

From the TPE staff I know they’re as fed up as everyone else with it all. Afaik a 6 car requires 2 Guards, often there might not be two to save money so they run as a 3 vice 6.

It's not about 'saving money' really is it? Before May 18 TPE ran 6 cars at peak and didn't require two conductors as the stations served were long enough. South Route and Hull Route don't have the infrastructure to accommodate that. ASDO was the fix, but it failed badly (IMO introduced in too quickly) and the right decision was made to abandon that until it was full proof. For the time being some trains will have 3 cars locked out, especially as training continues for conductors meaning less are available. But to say its a money saving exercise - its a lazy argument.

 

[Seehof]

Do they really need two guards?
A Pacer coupled to a 150 ie no walkthrough only needs one Guard
I know because I have worked many a train like that!

 

[SuperNova]

Do they really need two guards?
A Pacer coupled to a 150 ie no walkthrough only needs one Guard
I know because I have worked many a train like that!

It is due to platforms not being long enough. Some doors need to be locked out.

 

[2L70]

Do they really need two guards?
A Pacer coupled to a 150 ie no walkthrough only needs one Guard
I know because I have worked many a train like that!

TPE used to run 6 car 185s using something called UDB. Not being able to run on the Hull Route I can dispute that, been on a couple some years ago.
Now because their latest train working has failed it appears you need 2 guards to run a 6 car. The cost cutting being asking “will you come in to assist on this train to man airport and back” which they won’t do for cost saving reasons.

Well, a leopard doesn’t change its spots.

 

[Starmill]

But to say its a money saving exercise - its a lazy argument.

I don't think it saves money because they don't employ enough staff, but it is very questionable if they have not 'saved money' by not deploying the SDO more competently.

The requirement was there for it from franchise award - the company knew it was going to be something they'd need to deliver from 2016. Here we are, four years into the contract, oh: it doesn't work as it should. Why not? Why was there not more management capital put into on getting it work in advance of 2018 timetable changes? Was the specification to install it the right one, or was it done to save money? It's clear that there aren't enough conductors to book the assisting conductors onto all of the necessary services and that they won't cancel another service to provide a conductor for one to be 6 car. But that's because they're trying to solve a problem that they should have never left themselves with. They knew that Dore wasn't going to have a 6 car platform in 2019.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The cost of replacing the lease on the 397s would be astronomically expensive and you've identified very tiny savings of times when there's no power to the overhead wires and a small percentage of maintenance economy.

At the time, there was a compulsion to order stock that would be available for delivery sooner than any more 802s were.

Oh, I wasn't thinking for one second the present situation would be changed, plainly the deal is done. As to delivery times this is stock that has been made in Japan, Italy and UK, the UK factory currently well below capacity, so I'm not sold on the advantage won. Long term TPE would have been easier to manage with a single consistent fleet and I suspect we've swapped some long term gains for short term advantage. I also suspect the main gains are accounting, not real.

 

[Roger B]

Oh, I wasn't thinking for one second the present situation would be changed, plainly the deal is done. As to delivery times this is stock that has been made in Japan, Italy and UK, the UK factory currently well below capacity, so I'm not sold on the advantage won. Long term TPE would have been easier to manage with a single consistent fleet and I suspect we've swapped some long term gains for short term advantage. I also suspect the main gains are accounting, not real.

And what short-term advantages might they be? TPE have trains that have been accepted as fit for service that are not in service because of insufficient number of trained staff. If they were introducing one new fleet instead of three, I suspect this would be less of a challenge. And they have quite a few trains still not yet accepted for service, particularly the 68+Mk5 combos that have been particularly problematic.

Given the protracted time taken to accept the fleet of 68+Mk5s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if all TPEs 802s will have been in service for quite a while before the last 68+Mk5 set is fit for service, during which a follow-up order could have been delivered (had it been placed before East Midland's).

And long-term disadvantages: ongoing costs of maintaining and operating four fleets instead of two, less-intensive stock utilisation, and what happens when they need to lengthen the trains (which could happen pretty quickly, if, as others have commented, demand has been throttled over recent years).

So it looks like short term pain and long-term pain to me. Time will tell.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The short term advantage was promised earlier deliver times, which hasn't been fulfilled. We agree. This unfulfilled promise of delivery times has saddled the railway with two more micro fleets and TPE will suffer from lack of interchangeability as time wears on - route clearance, staff training, even reservations will mean stock cannot be moved around. This is going off topic, but the extra training and delays in acceptance isn't helping performance, nor will the inability to move stock between routes.

 

[Starmill]

Oh, I wasn't thinking for one second the present situation would be changed, plainly the deal is done. As to delivery times this is stock that has been made in Japan, Italy and UK, the UK factory currently well below capacity, so I'm not sold on the advantage won. Long term TPE would have been easier to manage with a single consistent fleet and I suspect we've swapped some long term gains for short term advantage. I also suspect the main gains are accounting, not real.

So you're advocating that the company should have chosen to agree to a far longer delivery timescale? The units might be beginning production now, months after they should have all been in service? And you're calling those lost years an "accounting" loss?

 

[Starmill]

The short term advantage was promised earlier deliver times, which hasn't been fulfilled. We agree. This unfulfilled promise of delivery times has saddled the railway with two more micro fleets and TPE will suffer from lack of interchangeability as time wears on - route clearance, staff training, even reservations will mean stock cannot be moved around. This is going off topic, but the extra training and delays in acceptance isn't helping performance, nor will the inability to move stock between routes.

Presumably the fact that the promise is unfilled brings contractual compensation with it. There has been plenty of rumour around that all doing the rounds from different parts of the industry, so I am not sure TPE will be any different. If the promise had never been made of course there would be no compensation.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Compensation won't help the performance though. This is a long string of imponderables. If the 350s were not going to the Midlands, if the 185s were not going back to the leasing company, if deliveries had been on time, if the stuff had worked properly and I've helped us up the blind alley of if the order had been different. Apologies

 

[dave59]

Would twelve 802s be that much more expensive than twelve 397s? Being discussed with the benefit of perfect hindsight here of course, given the service entry delays that have affected the CAF fleets since the order was placed.

You keep quoting 802's here but its the 801 that would replace (or could have been ordered in place of) 397's. If the 397's are captive to the WCML Scotland routes the 801's could be too. I assume also that the 802 is significantly more expensive in all respects.

 

[Roger B]

Yes, I agree - 801s rather then 802s. Probably less expensive to acquire and to run than 802s: no diesel engines & switchover mechanisms; reduced maintenance (less to maintain); quicker to train train crews and maintenance engineeers (less to train them on); less to go wrong/misbehave; cheaper to run (not lugging around a few tone of diesel equipment and fuel). But probably not as cheap as the C A F 397s. But looking at lifetime costs - hard to say - close call I'd suggest, because of economies gained by having one fewer fleet for ongoing maintenance (spares, etc), and better utilisation in service. Should be able to tell a few years hence - that is if whoever's running 801s on ECML services then is happy to release what could be sensitive data!

 

[Clarence Yard]

The people running LNER won’t have a clue about that. They only pay a daily “Set Availability Payment” and any EC4T. They don’t get to know the other maintenance costs - that stays within Agility.

The problem with having three fleets was down to the DfT requirement to have the fleet in on a certain date. You couldn’t go with one manufacturer or the other because of that requirement - they couldn’t deliver it all in time - hence the rather weird mix.

All a bit academic now with all the delays.

 

[SuperNova]

I don't think it saves money because they don't employ enough staff, but it is very questionable if they have not 'saved money' by not deploying the SDO more competently.

The requirement was there for it from franchise award - the company knew it was going to be something they'd need to deliver from 2016. Here we are, four years into the contract, oh: it doesn't work as it should. Why not? Why was there not more management capital put into on getting it work in advance of 2018 timetable changes? Was the specification to install it the right one, or was it done to save money? It's clear that there aren't enough conductors to book the assisting conductors onto all of the necessary services and that they won't cancel another service to provide a conductor for one to be 6 car. But that's because they're trying to solve a problem that they should have never left themselves with. They knew that Dore wasn't going to have a 6 car platform in 2019.

Where's your questioning of Siemens in this? They after all maintain the stock and retrofitted the stock?

 

[Starmill]

Where's your questioning of Siemens in this? They after all maintain the stock and retrofitted the stock?

Quite - under contract to TransPennine Express.

 

[BenW390Fan]

TPE used to run 6 car 185s using something called UDB. Not being able to run on the Hull Route I can dispute that,

Can't TPE run 6 car 185's to Hull?