TPE WCML service changes from May 2019

[route101]

Will be interesting to see if the Glasgow - Liverpool service grows ?

 

[TBSchenker]

Interesting , if you had a early flight at Manchester you could take it , still time to wait at other end though .

Gets to the airport at 0158. Perfect for 0600 flights to bucket and spade destinations. The official line is to arrive 3 hours before your flight anyway.

Plus, saves on getting a hotel the night before!

 

[vlad]

A useful way to do that would be to extend the additional LNR Brum service (which will run via Alsager) to Preston, giving a second TPH to Brum too.

Is it possible to thread that through Crewe?

 

[route101]

Gets to the airport at 0158. Perfect for 0600 flights to bucket and spade destinations. The official line is to arrive 3 hours before your flight anyway.

Plus, saves on getting a hotel the night before!

Indeed but if this service is cancelled your screwed ha

 

[Bevan Price]

Didn't someone stop to think though that having a return service stop at an entirely different station might not be a good look??!! Local Press will have a field day with this when it comes out into the public domain. It's a railway own goal in the making and needs a super quick alteration before they see it .

They should already know by now - I have sent an email to the St.Helens Star (the local free weekly paper.)........

 

[backontrack]

Network Rail get the blame for a lot of things on here (I've criticised them myself), but after almost nine months of them getting bashed for permitting the May 2018 timetable paths (that have caused big problems with repercussions across much of northern England) it seems a bit unfair to criticise them for this Liverpool - Glasgow service not always stopping at St Helens. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

Moral of this story: don't criticise Network Rail, because if you do you won't get so good an improved surface?

In all seriousness, I can empathise with St Helens residents who felt that they were gaining a more frequent service to the Lakes and to Scotland. I think they're entitled to feel slightly sold short by these changes.

True, they've gained some trains in the new timetable. But then, so has Denton. The point is that you can hardly blame residents when they hope for a few more.

 

[The Planner]

Is it possible to thread that through Crewe?

Across the station and then up to Weaver and beyond? Would probably turn a planners hair grey before they gently started rocking back and forth in a corner.

 

[sd0733]

Across the station and then up to Weaver and beyond? Would probably turn a planners hair grey before they gently started rocking back and forth in a corner.

It was always prohibited in the Franchise spec as we are only allocated 2 paths per hour Crewe to Weaver. So the only way would be to divert a Liverpool train to Preston which is hugely unlikely so the planners are pretty safe!!

 

[Mathew S]

It was always prohibited in the Franchise spec as we are only allocated 2 paths per hour Crewe to Weaver. So the only way would be to divert a Liverpool train to Preston which is hugely unlikely so the planners are pretty safe!!

It's off topic, but is the simplest answer not 2 X 319s (or similar) running a shuttle Preston/Wigan - Crewe via Earlestown and Warrington? Longer journey times than the hourly VTWC but it's only 1 extra path each way per hour and it can always be overtaken by something fast on the WCML while it pootles around the Earlestown/Golborne/Parkside junctions.

 

[Greybeard33]

The May TT change still shows roughly the same platforming arrangements at Manchester Airport . As discussed in other threads, the Airport can only accommodate 2*4-carriage trains if the platforms are permissively worked . Bearing in mind by May we will probably start seeing the Mk5s and 68s being introduced (initially to Scarborough but also Middlesbrough), the 397s on the West Coast Scottish services and the 802s on the Newcastle services, there is an impending issue with Airport platform occupation . In Real-time trains only TPE and TfW services are in for the Airport, but already I see one possible conflict.

To summise (selecting 1130-1230 as an example.

Platform 4 unavailable 1135-1147 (Middlesbrough)
Platform 1 unavailable 1143-1210 (Scottish)
Platform 2 unavailable 1207-1217 (Newcastle)

TfW services currently shown in platform 2 1214-1236 as the amended TPE diagrams have the Middlesbrough and Newcastle services interworking, but they'll stop when the new trains enter service . So the TfW service will need an alternative platform .

Add to this the planned Northern services and the Airport is going to be tightly constrained. A couple of late runners and platform space is going to be limited.

IMO the Airport platform constraints mean that the 397s are likely to be restricted to the Liverpool - Scotland services until the December TT change, with all Airport services still worked by 350s and 185s. PPM would nosedive again if TPE reverted to 10 minute turnrounds for the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services, in order to free up Airport platform space for the new trains.

 

[TBSchenker]

Think it's been mentioned the Liverpool-Glasgows will be 185s, probably until they are replaced by 397s . This timetable has been many months, if not years, in the planning. The delay of introducing new trains is relatively recent, so this issue about platform occupancy really shouldn't actually be an issue, but it might be .

 

[Class 170101]

If (big if)
The current plans sees the 0422 from Glasgow split at Carstairs with half continuing to MIA and the other bit running empty to Edinburgh for the first train south from there.

Strange I would run the unit ECS from Glasgow to Edinburgh via Coatbridge and Falkirk Grahamston as an alternative for when the route via Midcalder is blocked. I think Virgin have used (part of) this route before to run between Edinburgh and Carstairs.

 

[Class 170101]

This one seems to allow a 20:00 departure from Kings Cross for Edinburgh by changing at Newcastle.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72201/2019/05/21/advanced

 

[deltic08]

Think it's been mentioned the Liverpool-Glasgows will be 185s, probably until they are replaced by 397s . This timetable has been many months, if not years, in the planning. The delay of introducing new trains is relatively recent, so this issue about platform occupancy really shouldn't actually be an issue, but it might be .

It could only happen here in the UK, diesel trains running a long distance service entirely under wires end to end.

The Commons Transport Select Committee should go over Grayling's head and approve Carnforth-Barrow and Oxenholme-Windermere electrification to reduce more diesel under wires running.

 

[Starmill]

Gets to the airport at 0158. Perfect for 0600 flights to bucket and spade destinations. The official line is to arrive 3 hours before your flight anyway.

Plus, saves on getting a hotel the night before!

Absolutely 100. I mean, nothing says 'holiday' to me like leaving home at 2200 and sitting on a train for 4 hours, before spending another 4 sat around a deserted terminal building before catching a red-eye flight!

As for the discussion about St Helens Central... Why not just wait and see? I am sure the paths will eventually be changed to 110mph ones... at some point it seems likely that more calls will be introduced.

I don't understand why there is a problem with one calling at Lea Green instead. It was chosen for the North TransPennine services because it has much better road access and car parking. It's not at all far from St Helens town centre and I've done the journey myself by bus in under 10 minutes. A group of us have even done it on a forum meet!

 

[LittleAH]

If (big if) TPE can get 2 loco hauled sets into service for May 20 this would release the 2 185 units required for the Liverpool WCML workings.

The class 350 workings to/ from Man Air are currently all single units due to collision damage to one set (and are in the system now reservation wise for only a 4 car service).

The current plans sees the 0422 from Glasgow split at Carstairs with half continuing to MIA and the other bit running empty to Edinburgh for the first train south from there.

If any spare units are available the 0422 becomes an 8 car from Preston to MIA only then splits there.

Also the 2 185s with Northern should be back. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the LIV-GLA service didn't start in May but sometime after before the December 19 change, when more MK5's come into service.

 

[Chester1]

It could only happen here in the UK, diesel trains running a long distance service entirely under wires end to end.

The Commons Transport Select Committee should go over Grayling's head and approve Carnforth-Barrow and Oxenholme-Windermere electrification to reduce more diesel under wires running.

Select Committees do not have executive power. The 185s will only be used until 2-3 of the class 397s enter service. Once the 350 sent to Germany for repairs re-enters service one should stop running Scotland services.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Select Committees do not have executive power. The 185s will only be used until 2-3 of the class 397s enter service. Once the 350 sent to Germany for repairs re-enters service one should stop running Scotland services.

Chances are the 350 will return to the U.K and head straight to LNWR.

 

[Chester1]

Chances are the 350 will return to the U.K and head straight to LNWR.

I guess that makes sense after the level of damage done and length of repairs required. Any idea when the first three 397s will to into service?

 

[Greybeard33]

This timetable has been many months, if not years, in the planning. The delay of introducing new trains is relatively recent, so this issue about platform occupancy really shouldn't actually be an issue, but it might be .

The years of planning produced the ill-fated May 2018 timetable. If it had worked like clockwork, with minimal delays, it would have allowed the TPE Scotland, Newcastle and Middlesbrough services each to have an Airport platform to themselves during their (brief) layovers, so that the 350s and 185s could have subsequently been replaced by the new 5-car trains.

It is the December 2018 sticking plaster timetable fix, now perpetuated until at least December 2019, that has created the platform occupancy issue.

The May 2019 timetable does at least have all the Scotland services booked into Platform 1A, unlike the current timetable, which has some of them stacked into 4B on top of a 185. If sufficient 397s are available for traffic before December, maybe they could take over some of the workings, depending on the feasibility of appropriate unit and crew diagramming.

 

[Greybeard33]

It could only happen here in the UK, diesel trains running a long distance service entirely under wires end to end.

As the VTWC Voyagers have been doing for years. At least TPE will only be using 185s temporarily on the WCML.

 

[TBSchenker]

The May 2019 timetable does at least have all the Scotland services booked into Platform 1A, unlike the current timetable, which has some of them stacked into 4B on top of a 185. If sufficient 397s are available for traffic before December, maybe they could take over some of the workings, depending on the feasibility of appropriate unit and crew diagramming.

During the day the Scottish TPE services have platform 1 all to themselves. They don't go on to of anything nor does anything go on top whilst they're there. This has been the case - during the day - since May last year when they stopped using platform 2. Occasionally they will have to platform share during disruption, but from experience the vast majority of the time they use Platform 1 .

 

[driver_m]

They should already know by now - I have sent an email to the St.Helens Star (the local free weekly paper.)........

Don't you just love the inevitable sneering St.Helens-Glasgow traffic comments that were inevitable from the minute we dared criticise the timetable plan. Conveniently ignoring that the train directly goes via England's biggest tourist trap..........

For me, the irritating thing is the fact that locally, we've been sold this new services thing by Merseytravel about Long Distance trains, and the improvements to St Helens Junction. The last part of the bargain was made, just unfortunate that they're not running the long distance trains from there, despite Junction being both longer, flatter, (Lea Green is on a 1 in 80 gradient) and having an actual waiting room, even if it is ancient. So to be told that we're getting the grand total of one train, that stops at a different station on the way back is somewhat of a letdown . Imagine the abuse my lot would take if we decided to divert most of the hourly VT Liverpool's to head to scotland instead, but don't worry everyone, we'll stop a few at Wigan so you can get home. Would go down like a cup of cold sick .

 

[Bevan Price]

Absolutely 100. I mean, nothing says 'holiday' to me like leaving home at 2200 and sitting on a train for 4 hours, before spending another 4 sat around a deserted terminal building before catching a red-eye flight!

As for the discussion about St Helens Central... Why not just wait and see? I am sure the paths will eventually be changed to 110mph ones... at some point it seems likely that more calls will be introduced.

I don't understand why there is a problem with one calling at Lea Green instead. It was chosen for the North TransPennine services because it has much better road access and car parking. It's not at all far from St Helens town centre and I've done the journey myself by bus in under 10 minutes. A group of us have even done it on a forum meet!

Sorry, but the bit about car parking is incorrect; Lea Green car park was well used before TP services stopped there. Now, midweek, it is often overflowing. Meanwhile, St. Helens Junction car park was more than doubled in size, and now always has plenty of room.
And will it create problems about return ticket validity? Start from St. Helens Central on your outward journey, but find yourself dumped at Lea Green on your return from Scotland ? (Quite apart from having no outward service from Lea Green towards Scotland.) In my opinion, it is a display of total incompetence.

 

[Class 170101]

Passengers can change trains.

 

[Greybeard33]

During the day the Scottish TPE services have platform 1 all to themselves. They don't go on to of anything nor does anything go on top whilst they're there. This has been the case - during the day - since May last year when they stopped using platform 2. Occasionally they will have to platform share during disruption, but from experience the vast majority of the time they use Platform 1 .

Not since the December timetable change, when interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services commenced. As I posted in the TPE North route thread:

According to the Working Timetable the 0747, 1047, 1147, 1347, 1447, 1547 and 1647 350 arrivals are all booked to use Platform 4B, on top of a TPE North 185 in Platform 4A. The 2144 arrival uses 2A, with a Northern Barrow service arriving behind in 2B. The 2240 and 2341 arrivals both go into Platform 4, to be joined for the 0002 ECS to Ardwick.

Randomly choosing Thursday 20 December to sample what really happened, all the above but the 1147, 1347 and 1447 actually did share platforms as per the WTT - see http://www.charlwoodhouse.co.uk/rail/liverail/full/MNCRIAP/20/12/18.

If 5-car 397s replace the 350s under the current timetable, I think there can be little doubt there will be more delays at the Airport.

 

[Starmill]

And will it create problems about return ticket validity? Start from St. Helens Central on your outward journey, but find yourself dumped at Lea Green on your return from Scotland ?

Good point. Do you live in the constituency that either station is located in? If so, why don't you email the MP's office and ask very politely if they will write to raise exactly this point with TransPennine Express management. Suggest that the solution is for TransPennine Express to introduce a new inter-availability rule stating that tickets from St Helens Central are valid also from Lea Green. Failing that, a new easement would help. This would be an obvious and sensible permanent inter-availability rule (I assume it doesn't already exist...). A new one on the Merseyrail Northern line was added recently, so there is even local precedent. I would be fascinated to hear what TPE say in response, and if they agree to take any action. I feel that if it were raised by an MP they would at the very least consider it properly. If your MP isn't the one responsible for the stations in question, it may be slightly more difficult. I would actually do this myself, as I'm really intrigued to hear what they'd say to this, but it would far less effective if it came from mine than if it came from a St Helens MP. You could raise broader concerns too but of course it is very unlikely that they can influence TransPennine to change the timetable once it has been validated by Network Rail. If if they could, there could be technical reasons why it cannot be done. However, there is no technical reason why inter-availability cannot be arranged. If the matter is raised, TransPennine have no excuses for not taking action. Now is the perfect time to look at that, just before tickets go on sale.

 

[BMIFlyer]

I guess that makes sense after the level of damage done and length of repairs required. Any idea when the first three 397s will to into service?

Night time testing in the signalling protection zone on the WCML starts later this month.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A new one on the Merseyrail Northern line was added recently

Where, OOI?

 

[deltic08]

Select Committees do not have executive power. The 185s will only be used until 2-3 of the class 397s enter service. Once the 350 sent to Germany for repairs re-enters service one should stop running Scotland services.

I know, but they do have the power to recommend.