TPE Plan for the future

[CAF397]

Too long.

An 802/2 is around 130m in length. Two would be 260m (a 9-car 80x is 234m).

Only platforms at Liverpool long enough would be 6,9 & 10 on the 'wrong' side for Chat Moss services, and Avanti will be using one, maybe two at any one time.

Platform lengths at Manchester Victoria
3 - 254m
4 - 224m
5 - 215m
6 - 215m

So can't be accommodated.

 

[Chester1]

Too long.

An 802/2 is around 130m in length. Two would be 260m (a 9-car 80x is 234m).

Only platforms at Liverpool long enough would be 6,9 & 10 on the 'wrong' side for Chat Moss services, and Avanti will be using one, maybe two at any one time.

Platform lengths at Manchester Victoria
3 - 254m
4 - 224m
5 - 215m
6 - 215m

So can't be accommodated.

7 coach sets would be about 180m so would fit Victoria and Manchester Airport. Oxford Road stops would foul the junctions but it was done for 2 x 350 sets and the 3 platform rebuild could be pushed up the list. Would 7 sets fit the right platforms at Lime Street? Seven would also add capacity on WCML services. There doesn't seem to be a prospect of new stock in the immediate future but a crunch will come if services become reliable and passenger numbers recover to pre pandemic levels.

 

[CAF397]

It was in reply to you asking for double 802s.

AFAIU there are no plans to reform TPE 802s, nor order new 80x trains (there are "plans" for a TPU fleet but nothing announced as yet). Definitely no plans to operate double.

You're more likely to see 397s working in multiple on the West Coast (and that is slim) than see 802s in multiple on TPE.

 

[hux385]

It was in reply to you asking for double 802s.

AFAIU there are no plans to reform TPE 802s, nor order new 80x trains (there are "plans" for a TPU fleet but nothing announced as yet). Definitely no plans to operate double.

You're more likely to see 397s working in multiple on the West Coast (and that is slim) than see 802s in multiple on TPE.

I would love to see 397s working in multiple, I feel that they are a very underrated train! Then they could run 10 cars Glasgow-Preston, splitting at Preston for 5 cars to Manc and 5 cars to Liverpool. Anyway, back to reality!!

 

[AndrewE]

I would love to see 397s working in multiple, I feel that they are a very underrated train! Then they could run 10 cars Glasgow-Preston, splitting at Preston for 5 cars to Manc and 5 cars to Liverpool. Anyway, back to reality!!

If only they had been built with gangways they could have run Liverpool and Manc to Glasgow and Edinburgh every hour!

 

[hux385]

If only they had been built with gangways they could have run Liverpool and Manc to Glasgow and Edinburgh every hour!

Now we're talking!

 

[Chester1]

It was in reply to you asking for double 802s.

AFAIU there are no plans to reform TPE 802s, nor order new 80x trains (there are "plans" for a TPU fleet but nothing announced as yet). Definitely no plans to operate double.

You're more likely to see 397s working in multiple on the West Coast (and that is slim) than see 802s in multiple on TPE.

The intention is to operate the reduced fleet unchanged until about 2030?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only they had been built with gangways they could have run Liverpool and Manc to Glasgow and Edinburgh every hour!

That (though only twice a day) was how the old Class 158 operation on that route in the 90s worked. To add to that, the Manchester Airport 158 ran paired up with a Barrow/Windermere 156 as far as Bolton.

 

[AndrewE]

That (though only twice a day) was how the old Class 158 operation on that route in the 90s worked. To add to that, the Manchester Airport 158 ran paired up with a Barrow/Windermere 156 as far as Bolton.

The Belgians used to run EMU's across the country (on more than 1 line, I think, & maybe still do) where two sets from A arrived at C and attached a single-set portion from B... the combined train ran to D where it split for E and F but only 1 set from A went to E, the other 2 ran to F. It was/is a good way of giving the maximum number of through journeys without people having to change.

I think the Cook's timetable had a specific warning about it and when we were there the on-train announcements about where you needed to sit for your destination seemed to be very thorough too!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Belgians used to run EMU's across the country (on more than 1 line, I think, & maybe still do) where two sets from A arrived at C and attached a single-set portion from B... the combined train ran to D where it split for E and F but only 1 set from A went to E, the other 2 ran to F. It was/is a good way of giving the maximum number of through journeys without people having to change.

In principle that sounds a good idea (if services are reliable enough). But it does require services that run through, rather than terminating at, the main passenger hub. I'm guessing it's possible in Belgium because the biggest destination - Brussels - has the main rail line running right through the city so that most trains can run through it, plus the lines then fan out to serve lots of different destinations at both ends of the main route through Brussels. That largely isn't going to work for London. You might be able to get it to work on a small scale around Birmingham or Manchester.

Also worth noting that that scheme is only likely to be useful on lines where frequencies are low-ish: It would be pointless on high frequency metro services where passengers are likely to have a 10-min max wait for their connecting train anyway.

 

[SuperNova]

The intention is to operate the reduced fleet unchanged until about 2030?

Not really reduced fleet. It’s reduced capacity as 15 185s we’re supposed to go off lease.

Plus with TRU, a full north route service won’t be really possible.

 

[Jonny]

Not really reduced fleet. It’s reduced capacity as 15 185s we’re supposed to go off lease.

Plus with TRU, a full north route service won’t be really possible.

Was that before or after they decided to let the Nova 3s go?

 

[158801]

Would it be practical for TPE to run double 802 sets at some point? They can't fit at Manchester Airport or Oxford Road but could they run on Liverpool to Newcastle? Would it require guards in both sets?

I would prefer fewer longer trains in Manchester than a return to the current (rather theoretical) timetable or the pre pandemic timetable. I know higher frequency is better for attracting passengers but the Manchester problems of the last six years are primarily due to trying to run too many trains over too many flat junctions.

Dewsbury and Huddersfield stations could accommodate 2x802’s

 

[sprinterguy]

Dewsbury and Huddersfield stations could accommodate 2x802’s

I presume that's supposed to read "couldn't"; with the relevant platforms at both stations all being significantly shorter than the required 260 metres in length.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

The Belgians used to run EMU's across the country (on more than 1 line, I think, & maybe still do) where two sets from A arrived at C and attached a single-set portion from B... the combined train ran to D where it split for E and F but only 1 set from A went to E, the other 2 ran to F. It was/is a good way of giving the maximum number of through journeys without people having to change.

I think the Cook's timetable had a specific warning about it and when we were there the on-train announcements about where you needed to sit for your destination seemed to be very thorough too!

The Dutch did the same thing up until about 12 years ago, indeed they had a whole fleet of Interciy EMUs (the Koplopers) built with gangway connections to facilitate this. This allowed the effective frequency from stations far from the Randstad, eg. Enschede and Groningen, to have a 30 min frequency to both Rotterdam and the Hague. The reliability of the fleet was said to be a problem, especially in Winter, and unfortunatelythey scrapped this approach but, when it worked, it was pretty good and a reminder what rail operation is capable of when everyone pulls in the same direction! The corridor connections on the Koploper were removed at their next general overhaul and, today, one must change trains eg. at Utrecht or Amersfoort to get the higher frequency although, to be fair it is normally always same or cross-platform.

NR, corporately, remains as opposed as ever to splitting and joining in the UK, even though the 'whole industry cost' (a phrase that they like to use) points in this direction to reduce vehicle-km costs, incurred by TOCs...

 

[irish_rail]

The Dutch did the same thing up until about 12 years ago, indeed they had a whole fleet of Interciy EMUs (the Koplopers) built with gangway connections to facilitate this. This allowed the effective frequency from stations far from the Randstad, eg. Enschede and Groningen, to have a 30 min frequency to both Rotterdam and the Hague. The reliability of the fleet was said to be a problem, especially in Winter, and unfortunatelythey scrapped this approach but, when it worked, it was pretty good and a reminder what rail operation is capable of when everyone pulls in the same direction! The corridor connections on the Koploper were removed at their next general overhaul and, today, one must change trains eg. at Utrecht or Amersfoort to get the higher frequency although, to be fair it is normally always same or cross-platform.

NR, corporately, remains as opposed as ever to splitting and joining in the UK, even though the 'whole industry cost' (a phrase that they like to use) points in this direction to reduce vehicle-km costs, incurred by TOCs...

Trouble is, recent experince down on the Western points to splitting and joining being incredibly inefficient from a rolling stock and staff point of view (not to mention time consuming and unreliable). It is easy to forget how much additional staff are required with portion working , due to all the extra ECS and depot moves . Thankfully GWR avoid it as much as is possible now, I'd be careful before wishing for it on TPE which has enough problems as it is.

 

[Chester1]

Not really reduced fleet. It’s reduced capacity as 15 185s we’re supposed to go off lease.

Plus with TRU, a full north route service won’t be really possible.

That is a short fall of 20 coaches. Are TPE really expecting passenger numbers on north pennine services to surpressed until TRU is completed, probably in 7 or 8 years time? I don’t think that is realistic even with the disruption caused by TRU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a short fall of 20 coaches. Are TPE really expecting passenger numbers on north pennine services to surpressed until TRU is completed, probably in 7 or 8 years time? I don’t think that is realistic even with the disruption caused by TRU.

In practice it isn't because of the extremely low utilisation of the Mk5 sets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Are TPE really expecting passenger numbers on north pennine services to surpressed until TRU is completed

Yes.

High fares and chronic overcrowding will make sure of it.

 

[Chester1]

Yes.

High fares and chronic overcrowding will make sure of it.

Its pathetic, especially in context of the aims of the TRU. I understand that TRU works will limit frequency but the solution should be longer trains. An order of 38 middle coaches for the 802s to extend all to 7 coaches would provide for some growth over the rest of the decade without needing extra staff or overloading infrastructure. Maybe the best we can hope for is that Northern take the stopping services at some point in the next few years so that the 185 fleet is less stretched.

 

[Bikeman78]

The Dutch did the same thing up until about 12 years ago, indeed they had a whole fleet of Interciy EMUs (the Koplopers) built with gangway connections to facilitate this. This allowed the effective frequency from stations far from the Randstad, eg. Enschede and Groningen, to have a 30 min frequency to both Rotterdam and the Hague. The reliability of the fleet was said to be a problem, especially in Winter, and unfortunatelythey scrapped this approach but, when it worked, it was pretty good and a reminder what rail operation is capable of when everyone pulls in the same direction! The corridor connections on the Koploper were removed at their next general overhaul and, today, one must change trains eg. at Utrecht or Amersfoort to get the higher frequency although, to be fair it is normally always same or cross-platform.

NR, corporately, remains as opposed as ever to splitting and joining in the UK, even though the 'whole industry cost' (a phrase that they like to use) points in this direction to reduce vehicle-km costs, incurred by TOCs...

It was quite an interesting operation. Every half hour portions from Rotterdam and Den Haag would attach at Utrecht. Then proceed to Amersfoort and then to Enschede one half hour and Zwolle the other half hour. At Zwolle the train would split with portions for Groningen and Leeuwarden. From Amsterdam there were portions from Amsterdam CS and Schiphol via Amsterdam Zuid which attached at Amersfoort. As with the trains from the Utrecht direction, they would also alternate between Enschede and Zwolle/Groningen/Leeuwarden. Cross platform connections were available at Amersfoort so every journey had a 30 minute frequency, albeit sometimes with a change. Peak time formations were up to 15 carriages. This all changed when Lelystad to Zwolle opened and the frequency from Rotterdam and Den Haag to Utrecht increased as well.

 

[SuperNova]

That is a short fall of 20 coaches. Are TPE really expecting passenger numbers on north pennine services to surpressed until TRU is completed, probably in 7 or 8 years time? I don’t think that is realistic even with the disruption caused by TRU.

Only 3/4 Mk5a are out every day.
Apparently TPE are only at 60-65% of pre covid pax numbers
Engineering work puts customers off.

I think it’s reasonably realistic.

 

[800001]

Only 3/4 Mk5a are out every day.
Apparently TPE are only at 60-65% of pre covid pax numbers
Engineering work puts customers off.

I think it’s reasonably realistic.

The shambolic timetable where trains are cancelled left, right and centre put people off! Engineering work properly planned, properly communicated and properly resourced keeps customers.

 

[xotGD]

The shambolic timetable where trains are cancelled left, right and centre put people off! Engineering work properly planned, properly communicated and properly resourced keeps customers.

And a chunk of those missing passengers will be found boosting the numbers on Northern's Calder Valley services.

 

[Killingworth]

And a chunk of those missing passengers will be found boosting the numbers on Northern's Calder Valley services.

On South Pennine overcroding was losing TPE custom, first class sitting on the floor, until early 2020 when capacity seemed to be coming right. In early March that seemed to be more than an upward blip and numbers were building - but within a fortnight all was lost!

Why buy a first class ticket from Sheffield to Manchester or Liverpool on an hourly service that often hasn't run, was very late or stopped short? For a more reliable hourly fast service use EMR where a trolley is often provided that should get through all 4 cars - except when they're packed because the preceding TPE hasn't run! A trolley often can't get through a packed 3 car. If it's 6 car the trolley only serves 3.

However Northern's 195 stoppers are picking up cost conscious Manchester Airport travellers for whom an extra 20 minutes is no big deal, especially as they usually run without delays picked up before Piccadilly or Sheffield.

 

[Llandudno]

And a chunk of those missing passengers will be found boosting the numbers on Northern's Calder Valley services.

A further chunk of these passengers are using the M62, A628 and A57 sadly…

 

[Howardh]

The shambolic timetable where trains are cancelled left, right and centre put people off! Engineering work properly planned, properly communicated and properly resourced keeps customers.

I had the pleasure to stand at Huddersfield station this afternoon as my train (and that of about 70 others) was continually put back...2 mins...then 3...then 2...then 4 etc etc until 30 mins late it showed up. But what impressed me is just how stoical the regular TPE victims passengers are, not a word of complaint, just the usual shrug of the shoulders and be grateful it shows up.

I'll get a whopping £3.30 for delay repay. At least I found a shelter with heating, on P2 adjacent to the pacer.

 

[SuperNova]

I had the pleasure to stand at Huddersfield station this afternoon as my train (and that of about 70 others) was continually put back...2 mins...then 3...then 2...then 4 etc etc until 30 mins late it showed up. But what impressed me is just how stoical the regular TPE victims passengers are, not a word of complaint, just the usual shrug of the shoulders and be grateful it shows up.

I'll get a whopping £3.30 for delay repay. At least I found a shelter with heating, on P2 adjacent to the pacer.

How is a fault with the signalling system the responsibility of a TOC?!

The shambolic timetable where trains are cancelled left, right and centre put people off! Engineering work properly planned, properly communicated and properly resourced keeps customers.

Look at the weekends just gone. Services worked well - normal passenger numbers down. Having seen what’s coming up with TRU, people won’t be getting on a replacement bus for weeks on end.

 

[thealexweb]

Now we're talking!

This is the level of ambition the public rightfully or wrongfully expects.

 

[Rich McLean]

Since the RDW agreement was resumed, we've had a full & reliable service. Very few cancellations. Why do we need to lose that?

Because in order to speed up training, those on RDW will need to cover diagrams for those crew requiring training. At the moment, RDW is just about covering routine absensces and lack of trained crew. RDW can't be relied upon.