TPE franchise awarded to First

[Bletchleyite]

Yes but European stock is far taller than our trains.

I don't overly care as long as I don't bang my head.

 

[Dave1987]

Except I haven't. I just understand that they have distinct advantages over everything you have suggested.

In fact, I'd put forward that your accusations of fanaticism are just a projection of your own views on the matter: you won't accept them regardless of anything about them.

Same old same old..... Until the next thread you suggest that Hitachi trains would be perfect for another line. Presumably that will be GEML next.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't overly care as long as I don't bang my head.

Ah so as long as you have enough headroom and legroom eh! :roll:

 

[RichmondCommu]

A world away from the see how many seats we can cram into a coach brigade.

On a packed Intercity service during the 'Peak' would you rather stand up or sit down? The more seats a train has (other than certain TfL services) the better. EMU's / DMU's are great because you don't have a loco taking up valuable platform space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah so as long as you have enough headroom and legroom eh! :roll:

And I can see out of the window, yes. Those are the main requirements I have in a train, and morally I should add RVAR compliance. Why should I care beyond that?

By the way I'm 6' 4" and long in the leg, so if I have enough legroom and headroom the vast majority of others will as well.

Oh, and reasonable width, but as it's 2+2 that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Dave1987]

On a packed Intercity service during the 'Peak' would you rather stand up or sit down? The more seats a train has (other than certain TfL services) the better. EMU's / DMU's are great because you don't have a loco taking up valuable platform space.

I'm not talking about packed Intercity services. And I merely pointed out how quiet and comfortable Chiltern mainline loco services are.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I can see out of the window, yes. Those are the main requirements I have in a train, and morally I should add RVAR compliance. Why should I care beyond that?

By the way I'm 6' 4" and long in the leg, so if I have enough legroom and headroom the vast majority of others will as well.

Oh, and reasonable width, but as it's 2+2 that shouldn't be an issue.

Well we have something in common then.......

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm not talking about packed Intercity services. And I merely pointed out how quiet and comfortable Chiltern mainline loco services are.

So what do you think should happen on packed Intercity services? Is it right that people should stand because the train was designed without enough seats? Do Chiltern not have packed Intercity services?

 

[Dave1987]

So what do you think should happen on packed Intercity services? Is it right that people should stand because the train was designed without enough seats? Do Chiltern not have packed Intercity services?

When I travel, if they have put on a full loco hauled set it's usually very comfortable with everyone having a seat. If they put on a 3 car DMU it's cosy and noisy. I presume you want Chiltern to ditch there loco sets for DMU's.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Same old same old..... Until the next thread you suggest that Hitachi trains would be perfect for another line. Presumably that will be GEML next.

Your answers don't even make sense. They aren't even responding to things I've actually said, and seem to be putting words in my mouth.

Yet again it's obvious that you've got a fanatical hatred, and project your own attitude to the debate onto others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I travel, if they have put on a full loco hauled set it's usually very comfortable with everyone having a seat. If they put on a 3 car DMU it's cosy and noisy. I presume you want Chiltern to ditch there loco sets for DMU's.

I don't overly care if I get a DMU or LHCS provided the DMU or LHCS is long enough (Voyagers aren't unless in pairs, nor are 185s again unless in pairs), comfortable enough (185s are, Voyagers are borderline) and does not break down (LHCS tends to fare worse here as there's only one engine, not 5 or more).

The only issue I have with Class 185s is that they are about two vehicles too short for what they do (and the First Class positioning is a bit silly, would be better at the cab end). Fortunately TPE plan to remedy that now.

 

[Dave1987]

Your answers don't even make sense. They aren't even responding to things I've actually said, and seem to be putting words in my mouth.

Yet again it's obvious that you've got a fanatical hatred, and project your own attitude to the debate onto others.

In your eyes. Anyway we have argued this to death before.

 

[Haydn1971]

In your eyes. Anyway we have argued this to death before.

And you keep resurrecting it

 

[Starmill]

What *is* it about the floor height? As long as you don't bang your head, who cares?

Class 175s and 180s have quite high floors. It doesn't make them uncomfortable.

The only thing it does (and this does apply to mk3 and 175 / 180) is make it more difficult to board.

 

[Dave1987]

And you keep resurrecting it

No I don't. I made a slightly flippant remark thats all.

 

[notlob.divad]

I am starting to get a little concerned that we have heard nothing more about future rolling stock from First beyond the Hitachi Bi-modes. The initial lot (what ever it may be) has to be running on passenger services, with all testing, driver training etc complete by the December 2017 timetable change. I would have thought all of these contracts for orders, maintenance etc would have been agreed in principle during the franchise tendering phase just ready to be rubber stamped when the DfTs decision was made.

At what point will there be an issue with the timescales required to deliver the new stock in time. I assume there will be some pretty big penalties for First if they are unable to deliver what they have promised in the timescales agreed with the DfT.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I am starting to get a little concerned that we have heard nothing more about future rolling stock from First beyond the Hitachi Bi-modes. The initial lot (what ever it may be) has to be running on passenger services, with all testing, driver training etc complete by the December 2017 timetable change. I would have thought all of these contracts for orders, maintenance etc would have been agreed in principle during the franchise tendering phase just ready to be rubber stamped when the DfTs decision was made.

At what point will there be an issue with the timescales required to deliver the new stock in time. I assume there will be some pretty big penalties for First if they are unable to deliver what they have promised in the timescales agreed with the DfT.

Well I wouldn't be too concerned about not knowing anything because FG don't finalise rolling stock contracts via the media but I do know they are progressing well and the legal tidying up will then follow. That probably means an announcement sometime in May.

It is unusual for contract discussions to be dragging on like this but the circumstances were unusual and the issues involved have now been largely resolved.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At what point will there be an issue with the timescales required to deliver the new stock in time. I assume there will be some pretty big penalties for First if they are unable to deliver what they have promised in the timescales agreed with the DfT.

Has any "officially-new statement" regarding the TPE franchise rolling stock forward positions come of the TPE head office recently?

 

[notlob.divad]

Has any "officially-new statement" regarding the TPE franchise rolling stock forward positions come of the TPE head office recently?

I haven't seen anything new at all since the Hitachi order at the beginning of the month.

So you can see the timetable from, say Lockerbie, being something like:

10:00 Manchester Airport
11:30 Liverpool
12:00 Manchester Airport
13:00 Manchester Airport
14:30 Liverpool
15:00 Manchester Airport

Opposed to a consistent timetable where every train goes to Manchester Airport and connections are available for Liverpool?

To be fair Lockerbie's current south bound timetable is hardly the picture of consistancy

1012 Glasgow Central Manchester Airport
1106 Edinburgh Manchester Airport
1207 Glasgow Central Manchester Airport
1311 Edinburgh Manchester Airport
1407 Glasgow Central Manchester Airport
1516 Edinburgh Manchester Airport

The benefits of having Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme, served by the Liverpool train, when it runs is that it gives those places direct access to both cities and people from Liverpool etc direct access to them.

Also it would allow TPE to advertise a faster Manchester - Edinburgh/Glasgow time when they run.

I have no idea where these extra Liverpool services fit in and why they can only run 3 tpd. However the logic of putting a service that doesn't currently exist, (thus with limited knowledge of passenger loading), in as the fastest connection, with the service we already know is heavily loaded picking up intermediate stops doesn't sit right with me.

How these two services fit in around the other services using the WCML I don't know, however I would expect a well designed timetable to slot the stopping Glasgow - Liverpool service to pass Carstairs Southbound as close behind a Fast Edinburgh - Manchester as possible to minimize the differential in time from the standard stopping pattern at intermediate stations. A similar situation at Preston Northbound with the Manchester - Edinburgh fast calling at Preston and then the Liverpool - Glasgow slower being the next train in, preferably on the same platform.

The DfT gave First the option to drop the calls off the Manchester service, If a corresponding (optional) Liverpool (or Blackpool) train was included. Therefore I see the two as being linked. Whether it is or not, only time will tell, but that is what I am expecting.

 

[Roose]

Maybe they want to retain their existing market from intermediate stations?

Maybe they will skip-stop despite the alternative impression given in the quotation earlier in the thread?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have no idea where these extra Liverpool services fit in and why they can only run 3 tpd.

There will only be 2 extra units compared to now, and they are each capable of doing 3 legs each way at respectable hours during the day.
Hence 3tpd Liverpool-Glasgow.

 

[Starmill]

I'm somewhat skeptical of the need for inter-city service at Carstairs that approaches anything that might be termed 'regular'. 1 or 2 trains a day to offer Edinburgh connections (as now) is about as far as seems sensible.

As a not infrequent user of Manchester <> Edinburgh / Glasgow services, I'd be disappointed indeed if the Liverpool ones are quicker...

 

[quantinghome]

There will only be 2 extra units compared to now, and they are each capable of doing 3 legs each way at respectable hours during the day.
Hence 3tpd Liverpool-Glasgow.

The 3tpd is a deliberate choice. From the interview Transpennine gave in RAIL, they want to see what demand is like and then expand the service if it proves to be a success. I guess it would be quite a risk to launch an hourly service from scratch.

 

[absolutelymilk]

I'm somewhat skeptical of the need for inter-city service at Carstairs that approaches anything that might be termed 'regular'. 1 or 2 trains a day to offer Edinburgh connections (as now) is about as far as seems sensible.

As a not infrequent user of Manchester <> Edinburgh / Glasgow services, I'd be disappointed indeed if the Liverpool ones are quicker...

Presumably the Liverpool ones are quicker partly so that the two trains operating it can have a decent turnaround time at either end while still operating at reasonable hours.

 

[notlob.divad]

The 3tpd is a deliberate choice. From the interview Transpennine gave in RAIL, they want to see what demand is like and then expand the service if it proves to be a success. I guess it would be quite a risk to launch an hourly service from scratch.

That seems sensible,

I'm somewhat skeptical of the need for inter-city service at Carstairs that approaches anything that might be termed 'regular'. 1 or 2 trains a day to offer Edinburgh connections (as now) is about as far as seems sensible.

Sorry I was not suggesting Carstairs as a regular stop, I referenced it as the junction between Glasgow and Edinburgh services.

As a not infrequent user of Manchester <> Edinburgh / Glasgow services, I'd be disappointed indeed if the Liverpool ones are quicker...

Presumably the Liverpool ones are quicker partly so that the two trains operating it can have a decent turnaround time at either end while still operating at reasonable hours.

Whilst this may be the case, I would have thought for the service to be successful as in quantinghome's post, stopping at the most stations to give as many people the opportunity to use it and use this train to service the market at these intermediate stations would be beneficial to that.

 

[po8crg]

The 3tpd is a deliberate choice. From the interview Transpennine gave in RAIL, they want to see what demand is like and then expand the service if it proves to be a success. I guess it would be quite a risk to launch an hourly service from scratch.

Hopefully, that means a long (timewise) option on more EMUs so they can just contact CAF (or whoever the manufacturer actually is) and say "can we have a few more" when they want to run the Liverpool service more frequently, or want to double-up some of the Manchester trains.

 

[notlob.divad]

Hopefully, that means a long (timewise) option on more EMUs so they can just contact CAF (or whoever the manufacturer actually is) and say "can we have a few more" when they want to run the Liverpool service more frequently, or want to double-up some of the Manchester trains.

That would be too sensible

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hopefully, that means a long (timewise) option on more EMUs so they can just contact CAF (or whoever the manufacturer actually is) and say "can we have a few more" when they want to run the Liverpool service more frequently, or want to double-up some of the Manchester trains.

That may depend on when the crashworthiness standards are next updated, along with emissions in the case of the Northern 195 order. Hopefully given the reduction of risk of collision occurring there'll be a common sense approach on the former...

 

[Mordac]

The new livery 185 was doing the Northern BIF runs today.

Here it is at Arnside:

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Presumably the Liverpool ones are quicker partly so that the two trains operating it can have a decent turnaround time at either end while still operating at reasonable hours.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but I'm sure the Train Service Requirement shown for Liverpool-Glasgow shows a longer journey time than for Manchester-Glasgow (which is no faster than today).
That despite the likely journey time Lime St-Wigan being much the same as that from Piccadilly-Wigan today (ie 27min, one stop).

While we are at it, the Northern/TPE franchise review in the May Modern Railways has the wording "this order is expected to go to CAF" for the TPE WCML EMUs.

 

[krus_aragon]

That roof is lovely, isn't it. I'm so glad First Group hasn't wasted money fixing a 40 year old roof, and have instead spent money on a beautiful new sign. It should be in the Tate Modern.

Tat Modern, shurely? :P

 

[RichmondCommu]

When I travel, if they have put on a full loco hauled set it's usually very comfortable with everyone having a seat. If they put on a 3 car DMU it's cosy and noisy. I presume you want Chiltern to ditch there loco sets for DMU's.

This all suggests that the Chiltern Trains service is not as busy as the services operated up the WCML, so one can only conclude that the alternative services up the WCML are more popular. More popular services require more seats. As I have no need to use Chiltern (Virgin is much quicker) I couldn't care less if they swapped their loco hauled stock for DMU's.