TPE Class 397 ('Nova 2') construction and updates

[Greybeard33]

Manchester to Wilmslow is 22 minutes and then 16 minutes to Crewe. ATW takes 45 minutes. The latter speed could be matched by a 397 travelling via Manchester Airport. Assuming matching a 350, being a minute faster than a 323 and same speed as a 390 the times would be 14, 8 and 16 minutes, leaving 7 minutes to stop and reverse at the airport. An extra 31 minutes each way could be provided by one extra 397.

Incorrect. Taking a random VTWC example, http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P51292/2017/04/11/advanced: Piccadilly dep. 0955, Wilmslow arr. 1010 (15 minutes), Crewe arr. 1027 (32 minutes). Or even for ATW (not an express service, timed for 100mph DMU), http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P70501/2017/04/11/advanced: Picc dep. 1030, Wilmslow arr. 1047 (17 minutes), Crewe arr. 1106 (36 minutes).

Also a 397 could not better 323 timings between the Airport and Wilmslow, since the linespeed is a mix of 75, 65 and 50mph.

 

[pemma]

Manchester to Wilmslow is 22 minutes and then 16 minutes to Crewe. ATW takes 45 minutes. The latter speed could be matched by a 397 travelling via Manchester Airport. Assuming matching a 350, being a minute faster than a 323 and same speed as a 390 the times would be 14, 8 and 16 minutes, leaving 7 minutes to stop and reverse at the airport. An extra 31 minutes each way could be provided by one extra 397.

Based on the current timetable - xx:00 departure from the Airport for Scotland, an extension to Crewe would need to depart Wilmslow at xx:50 or earlier (by the time the crew would have to change ends at the Airport) so you'd need something like an xx:33 departure from Crewe but xx:33 from Crewe probably won't work due to the other services arriving and departing Crewe at that time so it'd have be put back to around xx:25 with a longer turnaround time at the Airport.

So you'd end up with something like:
Crewe d: xx:25
Wilmslow d: xx:42
Airport a: xx:52
Airport d: xx:00
Piccadilly a: xx:14

Resulting in around 30 minutes from Wilmslow to Piccadilly and it being overtaken by the ATW service via Stockport.

 

[route:oxford]

There's nothing particularly Transpennine about Newcastle-Edinburgh either, but it is set to become a major TPE route.
I'm very doubtful about devoting resources up there when it already has 3tph VTEC/XC.

Depends on how far it eventually goes.

Ideally, once the knitting is up, a couple of services a day that start at Stirling/Dunblane would be very welcome indeed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Depends on how far it eventually goes.
Ideally, once the knitting is up, a couple of services a day that start at Stirling/Dunblane would be very welcome indeed.

If they are introduced, those services should run via Carlisle.
Probably an hour faster to Manchester via the WCML.

 

[Chester1]

Incorrect. Taking a random VTWC example, http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P51292/2017/04/11/advanced: Piccadilly dep. 0955, Wilmslow arr. 1010 (15 minutes), Crewe arr. 1027 (32 minutes). Or even for ATW (not an express service, timed for 100mph DMU), http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P70501/2017/04/11/advanced: Picc dep. 1030, Wilmslow arr. 1047 (17 minutes), Crewe arr. 1106 (36 minutes).

Also a 397 could not better 323 timings between the Airport and Wilmslow, since the linespeed is a mix of 75, 65 and 50mph.

Fair enough. Its 38 minutes from Crewe to Piccadilly but 32 minutes from Piccadilly to Crewe using National Rail which I know is slightly less accurate.

Based on the current timetable - xx:00 departure from the Airport for Scotland, an extension to Crewe would need to depart Wilmslow at xx:50 or earlier (by the time the crew would have to change ends at the Airport) so you'd need something like an xx:33 departure from Crewe but xx:33 from Crewe probably won't work due to the other services arriving and departing Crewe at that time so it'd have be put back to around xx:25 with a longer turnaround time at the Airport.

So you'd end up with something like:
Crewe d: xx:25
Wilmslow d: xx:42
Airport a: xx:52
Airport d: xx:00
Piccadilly a: xx:14

Resulting in around 30 minutes from Wilmslow to Piccadilly and it being overtaken by the ATW service via Stockport.

The ATW xx30 departure is the biggest problem and I doubt it could be altered by half an hour. An xx33 departure would provide a journey time of 41 minutes which would slower than VT but certainly adequate. Anything matching the ATW journey time of 45 minutes would suffice.

The Sheffield service has basically the same problem as it only leaves the airport 5 minutes before the Scotland service. That would require retaining 2 extra 185s which wouldn't be too difficult. It might be hard or expensive to order an extra new unit to extend alternative services.

 

[pemma]

The ATW xx30 departure is the biggest problem and I doubt it could be altered by half an hour. An xx33 departure would provide a journey time of 41 minutes which would slower than VT but certainly adequate. Anything matching the ATW journey time of 45 minutes would suffice.

ATW leaves Crewe at xx:30 and arrives at Piccadilly at xx:10. Looking at the timings it's not surprising ATW managed to get a Nantwich call added in because it seems to do some waiting around in the Crewe area even with the Nantwich call.

The Sheffield service has basically the same problem as it only leaves the airport 5 minutes before the Scotland service. That would require retaining 2 extra 185s which wouldn't be too difficult.

So now you're considering Crewe-Airport-Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield!

 

[route:oxford]

If they are introduced, those services should run via Carlisle.
Probably an hour faster to Manchester via the WCML.

That would require a reversal at either Glasgow Queen Street, or a reversal at Waverley and double Haymarket call - which breaks the unwritten rule forbidding new services with reversals.

Adding current service times together (never entirely accurate), suggests 1h30m EDI-NCL and 2h22m NCL to MAN or 3h52m altogether. This doesn't compare too badly to the 3h17m Carlisle routing.

 

[Chester1]

So now you're considering Crewe-Airport-Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield!

Any extension from airport to Crewe. The ITT didnt specify which they could extend. The 397 is the most obvious intially because its an EMU and they have options for extra units so could be tagged onto a larger new order. Aside from extra capacity it would provide better connections to the airport which are poor from Wales and the Midlands.

 

[Starmill]

Unwritten rule against reversing? Sounds like a load of nonsense to me!

 

[43096]

Unwritten rule against reversing? Sounds like a load of nonsense to me!

It does, doesn't it?

"Unwritten rule" - on the railway it's either a rule or it isn't (hence the "rule book") and if it is it will be written down.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't think the TPE services will ever be extended north of Edinburgh even when the wires are in place. Demand from north of the Central Belt to London is enough to justify a few extensions of normal Edinburgh services each day; demand to Manchester from the Central Belt is already at a lower starting position and as you go further up it's going to drop off even more. The advantage of allowing a few more travellers a no-change journey isn't enough to outweigh the cost of tying up a TPE train for a journey that could be easily as well done by a ScotRail Class 385 or HST.

 

[pemma]

The ITT didnt specify which they could extend.

That's true but they had to look at whether the business case for extending services to Crewe made sense, rather than just pick one at random to extend.

The only benefit of extending South TPE to Crewe would be to enhance the frequency of Crewe-Manchester Airport services, given from Stockport-Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe is very indirect and there's frequent direct Stockport-Crewe services.

With the Scottish service it would also provide a new direct link between Bolton and Crewe but obviously First didn't think that and the benefit of enhancing the Crewe-Airport frequency was great enough to justify leasing an additional train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That would require a reversal at either Glasgow Queen Street, or a reversal at Waverley and double Haymarket call - which breaks the unwritten rule forbidding new services with reversals.

You've forgotten the "proper" direct Caledonian route via Motherwell, also being wired.
We live in hope that VT (or whoever) will run direct from Euston to Stirling when the wires are up.

Or they could reverse at Glasgow Central and use the newly electrified Rutherglen & Coatbridge to reach Stirling, as Scotrail did during the Queen St blockade.
Reversals (and portion working) still happen all over the place.

 

[route:oxford]

"Unwritten rule" - on the railway it's either a rule or it isn't (hence the "rule book") and if it is it will be written down.

There are loads of unwritten rules that are regularly relied on the forums.

No reversals on new services is just one of them. The other main unwritten rule is that no rail line can be re-opened unless it follows the exact unwaivering route of the original closed route.

You've forgotten the "proper" direct Caledonian route via Motherwell, also being wired.

That's the route I meant when I suggested utilising a reversal at Queen Street. In via Lenzie, out via the Cowlairs Chord and Stepps.

Missing out Glasgow Queen Street would be missing out on considerable revenue.

We live in hope that VT (or whoever) will run direct from Euston to Stirling when the wires are up.

Virgin already run 2 services daily from Stirling, albeit one is at an ungodly hour, I can't see them operating a third service to London (Euston) - although a service to Birmingham would be very useful indeed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Virgin already run 2 services daily from Stirling, albeit one is at an ungodly hour, I can't see them operating a third service to London (Euston) - although a service to Birmingham would be very useful indeed.

Yes, but they are VTEC services.
With both WCML and ECML offering similar journey times Edinburgh/Glasgow to London, there's no reason to continue to fixate on the East Coast route as has been the case since the WCML got left behind with IC125/225.
But even with wires there is a general lack of suitable (tilting) stock.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes, but they are VTEC services.
With both WCML and ECML offering similar journey times Edinburgh/Glasgow to London, there's no reason to continue to fixate on the East Coast route as has been the case since the WCML got left behind with IC125/225.
But even with wires there is a general lack of suitable (tilting) stock.

East Coast extensions are easier because Edinburgh is a through station, and the services are optimal at either side. Stirling to Glasgow Central or Glasgow Queen Street to Carstairs are not normal routes. The most practical way to run this sort of service would be to join up two half-sets at Motherwell from the two different directions, but it seems that ICWC isn't planned to receive any new rolling stock. Unless you want to run a whole Trent Valley express service with Super Voyagers just so that it can split it doesn't look like it's going to happen. The fact that the journey times are equivalent for WCML and ECML means there's even less of a reason to run both.

 

[hibtastic]

The Edinburgh extension to TPE's NCL to MAN makes sense as the Hitatchi units will be maintained at Craigentinny.

IMHO Edinburgh could justify an hourly TPE service on the WCML anyway therefore the new option via the ECML is welcome.

 

[speedy_sticks]

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/905006790747750400

 

[rebmcr]

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/905006790747750400

That's a hefty anti-ride-up device. Quite different to the 'buffer stop'-style ones we've gotten used to seeing on Siemens and Bombardier stock.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

at all the comments on something that's obviously unfinished and will look very different once it is!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Massive windows!

 

[Spartacus]

at all the comments on something that's obviously unfinished and will look very different once it is!

I like the 'why aren't they being built in Britain' outraged comments on certain sources, when no British builders bid for the contract.

 

[Chester1]

I like the 'why aren't they being built in Britain' outraged comments, when no British builders bid for the contract.

I like the rhyming comment about Crewe and Doncaster! CAF's plan to build a factory in South Wales next year add to the irony. Of course it and Hitachi Newton Aycliffe don't count, only a reopening a former train building site is acceptable....

 

[Domh245]

That's a hefty anti-ride-up device. Quite different to the 'buffer stop'-style ones we've gotten used to seeing on Siemens and Bombardier stock.

These units will still have the buffer style anti-climbers. You can see the styling of the front fairings necessary to accommodate them in the renderings.

The image of the bodyshell goes to the split line behind the lights, and down to just before the sticky-outy bit that looks like it exists to blend the over-riders in. That and the large plates on the front to attach them to.

I'm not entirely sure that the device you've identified is actually an anti-climer, it suspect that it is more likely to be part of the survival cell around the driver, but that is supposition more than anything else.

 

[TBSchenker]

Awfully quiet news wise.

The first 397 has arrived at the Velim test track.

Any further updates would be appreciated.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Testing has started at Velim
https://www.railjournal.com/index.p...ine-express-on-test-at-velim.html?channel=000

DYNAMIC testing of the first CAF class 397 ‘Nova 2’ EMU for British train operator TransPennine Express (TPE) began on the inner circuit at the VUZ Veilm test centre in the Czech Republic on the afternoon of July 3.

It reached 125mph, presumably with no issues. Due to enter service early next year. I guess no news is good news, seems to be on track!

 

[jayiscupid]

There's another photo on Railcolournews.com.

http://railcolornews.com/2018/07/04/uk-expert-caf-start-testing-tpe-nova-2-emu-at-velim-test-centre/

 

[superalbs]

Such incredible looking trains!

 

[Tam]

Who needs Railcolournews when we have our own local correspondent?

 

[Tam]