Construction progress: TPE 350/4

[WillPS]

Dwell times may be shorter with 'middly doors', but surely you get more seats/tables/legroom (though not all of the above) with a 158, which is what you want for longer-distance journeys. If a train doesn't stop much, surely an extra minute dwell matters far less than it does on a stopping service. TPE is no stopping service, is it? the clue's in the name, Trans-Pennine EXPRESS. Use express stock (something like 158s/442s/444s) on express services, use suburban stock (like 170s, 172s, 377s etc.) on stoppers and short-distance services.

Not very much room, no.

Remember that bigger doors and vestibule areas are now required under DDA regs - see a 175 for an indication of the sort of difference this makes compared to a 158. I'm pretty sure the capacity of a 175 is almost the same as a 172?

A TPE service will typically make 3-5 calls per hour. 1 minute dwell time at each of those equals 3-5 minutes off the timetable.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh, so these 'new' trains are not only not the best for the route and a tack-on to an order which is not appropriate for this part of the country but they are also... less safe than they should be?

I would argue the seating is the best that is available at the present time.
The door layout is now pretty much the dominant one on this sort of route, and the whole safety thing is rather overblown.

The crash standards have just gone from extremely safe to almost ludicrously safe. You are not significantly more likely to be injured on a Class 350 than on a Class 380.
(Myself I believe this continuous escalation is nothing more than gold plating, but there we go).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My posting was made in response to the posting made by 61653HTAFC and posed a rhetorical question in response to the point that he endeavoured to make.

I was not acting as a proponent for such a course of the said action.

My suggestion was not to rebuild the 185s completely to move the exterior doors to the end of the vehicles- simply to install interior doors separating the saloons from the vestibules to provide some degree of protection from the elements. Apologies if that wasn't clear!

 

[plastictaffy]

However there are many (172?) Desiros operating with SWT that DO have their guards office's in use. Possibly Best not to generalise...

Oh, okay. Let me put it another way - none of the mark one Desiro's on LM have a Guard's office!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tacking the order for ten onto LM's existing order avoided raising a separate OJEU tender. By piggy backing onto LM's order they were able to avoid the fact that the 350 design was obsolescent. A separate TPE order would have had to meet newer crash resistance, like the 380 (if Siemens had got it)...

Now that rings bells, that's almost exactly what I read!!! Thanks.!

 

[northwichcat]

Remember that bigger doors and vestibule areas are now required under DDA regs - see a 175 for an indication of the sort of difference this makes compared to a 158. I'm pretty sure the capacity of a 175 is almost the same as a 172?

The 175s have more seats, despite the extra leg room and additional non-accessible toilet.

175/0 - 134 seats
175/1 - 206 seats
172/2 - 116 seats
173/3 - 188 seats

The non-refurbished 2 car 158s only have a few more seats than the 2 car 175s. I think you've overlooked that the carriage length of the 158s is around 60-70cm shorter than on newer stock, which means slightly wider doors without less capacity is viable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Remember that bigger doors and vestibule areas are now required under DDA regs - see a 175 for an indication of the sort of difference this makes compared to a 158. I'm pretty sure the capacity of a 175 is almost the same as a 172?

How many tables does a 172 have versus a 175? 175s have the best legroom of any train I can rememeber going on. 175s also have a seperate drivers door, which you don't need with end-door stock if 158s are anything to go by. Removing that extra door wouldn't save much length, but it'd save a bit. The passenger doors and vestibles on a 175 don't seem much bigger than a 158's to me, though the vestibles are slightly bigger. Certainly I don't think they are as wide as suburban double-doors.

A TPE service will typically make 3-5 calls per hour. 1 minute dwell time at each of those equals 3-5 minutes off the timetable.

Manchester - York mostly has only 3 intermediate stops (Huddersfield and Leeds, plus one of Dewsbury and Stalybridge) in 1hr 24mins, which is similar to Shrewsbury to Machynlleth 3 stops in 1hr 19min. The latter is most definiately what I would call a regional express service, and the 158s are perfect for the job (only thing better would be 159s I think).

My suggestion was not to rebuild the 185s completely to move the exterior doors to the end of the vehicles- simply to install interior doors separating the saloons from the vestibules to provide some degree of protection from the elements.

How much would that affect the dwell times? Perhaps doing that would make the difference between the current suituation and something similar to a 444 (when the route is electrified) smaller. EMU acceleration might help a bit also, making up for the longer station dwells by accelerating out of them faster (although there might not be an improvement over the powerful 185s).

May i refer you to the Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Oxford Road section of the network which by 2016 will be seeing around 5 TPE trains per hour in each direction (2 to Leeds 3 to NW, it could be more to be honest!!!).

So you would give the whole network inapporiate stock because of the short hop between MAN and MCO? Given how close the two are, would you see any net loss in passengers if you only called at one of them? Plus, are the TPE trains proposed through Manchester Victoria additional services then? I thought they were diverting some of the TPE frequency away from Piccadilly and into Victoria instead.

just because it has express in the name... doesn't really mean much. On routes shared with Northern it stops less often, on the WCML it stops more often than all other operators. The WCML doesn't really travel very near coast at all. Yet Coast is in the name. Transpennine routes to Scotland don't cross the pennines yet Transpennine is part of the name.

Well over some parts of the TPE network, it is a stopping service. With no effective Northern service on the ECML between Newcastle and York (and no service at all between Darlington and York) TPE provide the stopping service and serve every station between Newcastle and York. A true express service wouldn't be calling at Chester-le-Street or Thirsk!

Well, the Transpennie part of the franchise is express, and there is talk elsewhere on this forum of ICWC taking over Manchester-Scotland (not a bad idea in my view), so it must be fast, or at least long-distance, enough. Maybe Northern should run stoppers on the parts of the ECML you mention, or maybe it's like the Cambrian Coast. It's a regional express service because it comes through from Shrewsbury/Birmingham, but were it just a shuttle to Dovey Junction or Machynlleth I'd suggest a 156 (I think it is too long a journey for suburan 'middly-door' stock).

Yeah, Manchester Airport to Blackpool, what's trans-pennine about THAT!?

Yeah, maybe that should be moved to the Northern franchise, if the trains don't run through from the other side of the Pennines.

 

[northwichcat]

175s also have a seperate drivers door, which you don't need with end-door stock if 158s are anything to go by.

New rolling stock must have a separate door for the driver's use. Pacers and Sprinters have grandfather rights in that respect.

So you would give the whole network inapporiate stock because of the short hop between MAN and MCO? Given how close the two are, would you see any net loss in passengers if you only called at one of them?

The problem with omitting MCO is the Liverpool stoppers terminate there so if regional trains don't call there then it makes connections for some stations difficult and there may not be enough capacity on local trains only to move all the Oxford Road passengers. Virgin had to remove the pick-up and set-down restrictions at Stockport when they went to VHF due to the peak time extras from Chester having to terminate at Stockport, meaning there would otherwise be a shortage of capacity on the Stockport-Manchester section.

Plus, are the TPE trains proposed through Manchester Victoria additional services then? I thought they were diverting some of the TPE frequency away from Piccadilly and into Victoria instead.

The eventual plan for North TPE is 6tph - 2tph Piccadilly only, 2tph Victoria only and 2tph to/from the Airport that will go via the Ordsall Chord so serve both.

 

[jimm]

How many tables does a 172 have versus a 175? 175s have the best legroom of any train I can rememeber going on. 175s also have a seperate drivers door, which you don't need with end-door stock if 158s are anything to go by. Removing that extra door wouldn't save much length, but it'd save a bit. The passenger doors and vestibles on a 175 don't seem much bigger than a 158's to me, though the vestibles are slightly bigger. Certainly I don't think they are as wide as suburban double-doors.

Manchester - York mostly has only 3 intermediate stops (Huddersfield and Leeds, plus one of Dewsbury and Stalybridge) in 1hr 24mins, which is similar to Shrewsbury to Machynlleth 3 stops in 1hr 19min. The latter is most definiately what I would call a regional express service, and the 158s are perfect for the job (only thing better would be 159s I think).

How much would that affect the dwell times? Perhaps doing that would make the difference between the current suituation and something similar to a 444 (when the route is electrified) smaller. EMU acceleration might help a bit also, making up for the longer station dwells by accelerating out of them faster (although there might not be an improvement over the powerful 185s).

So you would give the whole network inapporiate stock because of the short hop between MAN and MCO? Given how close the two are, would you see any net loss in passengers if you only called at one of them? Plus, are the TPE trains proposed through Manchester Victoria additional services then? I thought they were diverting some of the TPE frequency away from Piccadilly and into Victoria instead.

Well, the Transpennie part of the franchise is express, and there is talk elsewhere on this forum of ICWC taking over Manchester-Scotland (not a bad idea in my view), so it must be fast, or at least long-distance, enough. Maybe Northern should run stoppers on the parts of the ECML you mention, or maybe it's like the Cambrian Coast. It's a regional express service because it comes through from Shrewsbury/Birmingham, but were it just a shuttle to Dovey Junction or Machynlleth I'd suggest a 156 (I think it is too long a journey for suburan 'middly-door' stock).

Yeah, maybe that should be moved to the Northern franchise, if the trains don't run through from the other side of the Pennines.

Yet again you wade in without thinking.

There is no comparison to be made between 172s and 175s, because the 172s were set up from the outset as suburban stock, with lots of standing room (especially the LM sets - the LO ones have an interior that seems to have half an eye on future use elsewhere so not as many seats as they could have taken). Why would you have tables in them?

Others have tried to point out what commuter traffic in the North is like. Just because TPE trains make a couple of stops between Leeds and Manchester doesn't mean the numbers getting on and off at those stops are not considerable - they are a key part of the commuter service around Leeds and Manchester, with TPE running far more trains than Northern on that corridor. Dwell times with the 158s previously used on TPE could be horrendous. What on earth has Shrewsbury-Machynlleth got to do with Leeds-Manchester? That's right, nothing.

TPE was never meant to be running Manchester-Scotland, that was just the result of DfT tinkering with the XC network. The ability to run West Coast electrics between Manchester and Preston in the future will probably bring an end to the TPE regime at some point anyway, with TPE and Northern left to focus on shifting the local passengers in the North West.

 

[YorkshireBear]

So you would give the whole network inapporiate stock because of the short hop between MAN and MCO? Given how close the two are, would you see any net loss in passengers if you only called at one of them? Plus, are the TPE trains proposed through Manchester Victoria additional services then? I thought they were diverting some of the TPE frequency away from Piccadilly and into Victoria instead.

Its not juat a short hop it is the core of the network. It will be a complete saturation so dwell timea need to be low. You would save little by not stopping at oxford road as it is a busy station and most would stop holding up anything that wasnt't. From dec 2016 there are 6tph leeds manc. Two go picadilly, two victoria oxford road pic and two victoria only. Plus nw services!

 

[Class172]

How many tables does a 172 have versus a 175? 175s have the best legroom of any train I can rememeber going on.

172s have none, if I was being pedantic. Going from memory though, I think both the DMS and MS have 8 bays each (ie table seating but without the table) and the DMSL has 6 bays.

 

[Starmill]

Yeah, maybe that should be moved to the Northern franchise, if the trains don't run through from the other side of the Pennines.

Yes, but that brings us onto the debate about which modern DMU stock Northern could spare to work the route. What are the options? Oh, wait...

 

[cjmillsnun]

Oh, so these 'new' trains are not only not the best for the route and a tack-on to an order which is not appropriate for this part of the country but they are also... less safe than they should be?

Why are they not appropriate for that part of the country?

You're making a sweeping generalisation.

Yes they were originally designed to a spec produced by SWT however like the Electrostar they are entirely suitable for the whole network. The only part that is SWT specific on the 350/1s is the provision of cabling for third rail use.

 

[Rhydgaled]

New rolling stock must have a separate door for the driver's use.

Must? What is the reason why? If that is the law, there probably is a perfectly valid reason, but I can't think of one.

The problem with omitting MCO is the Liverpool stoppers terminate there so if regional trains don't call there then it makes connections for some stations difficult and there may not be enough capacity on local trains only to move all the Oxford Road passengers.

That's a good point. Awkward.

Others have tried to point out what commuter traffic in the North is like. Just because TPE trains make a couple of stops between Leeds and Manchester doesn't mean the numbers getting on and off at those stops are not considerable - they are a key part of the commuter service around Leeds and Manchester, with TPE running far more trains than Northern on that corridor.

I'm not saying the numbers using those stops are low, I'm saying there aren't all that many stops, so the additional dwell times don't add up quite so much. The fact remains it is a fast service where passengers are going to be travelling a fair distance, hence I believe the stock should be geared to providing more comfort (seats/tables/legroom) rather than more standing room.

What on earth has Shrewsbury-Machynlleth got to do with Leeds-Manchester?

Similar number of stops in a similar journey time.

172s have none, if I was being pedantic. Going from memory though, I think both the DMS and MS have 8 bays each (ie table seating but without the table) and the DMSL has 6 bays.

Thanks. Anyone got the comparison for 175s (which also have some table-less bays, but I've never thought to count how many bays).

Yes, but that brings us onto the debate about which modern DMU stock Northern could spare to work the route. What are the options? Oh, wait...

We're talking about Blackpool - Manchester Airport here aren't we? DMU stock is surely not a concern, since the route is being electrified, isn't it? Somebody is going to need to buy more new EMUs sooner or later.

 

[tbtc]

Manchester - York mostly has only 3 intermediate stops (Huddersfield and Leeds, plus one of Dewsbury and Stalybridge) in 1hr 24mins, which is similar to Shrewsbury to Machynlleth 3 stops in 1hr 19min. The latter is most definiately what I would call a regional express service, and the 158s are perfect for the job (only thing better would be 159s I think)

What on earth has Shrewsbury-Machynlleth got to do with Leeds-Manchester? That's right, nothing

Similar number of stops in a similar journey time

Manchester to York sees a huge churn in passengers - you could see three people occupying a particular seat over the 90ish minute journey time, so the wide doors are very useful.

As an example, compare the dwell time of a TPE 185 at 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly to the dwell time of an EMT 158 or a W&B 175.

I'd imagine that the intermediate stops between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth are a bit quieter than Huddersfield/ Leeds etc?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd imagine that the intermediate stops between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth are a bit quieter than Huddersfield/ Leeds etc?

Much lower passenger numbers yes, but, as you'd expect, the TPE route has a more frequent service. Are you saying routes with more passengers should have a less-comfortable service? That doesn't (or didn't, prior to Voyagers) apply to London services, probably the busiest on the network. Many 8/9 coach IC125s and IC225s go in and out of Paddington and Kings Cross each hour. So on one end of the scale you have 158s on the Cambrian, and at the other end of the scale you have INTERCITY stock on services into London. Since Manchester - York is somewhere in the middle, I find it supprising that some (in my very limited experience, seemingly most) trains are only 3-car (even more supprising was that almost seemed to cope, whereas short-formed Cambrian trains don't seem to cope). A formation of between 5 and 7 (444/5-WES-style) coaches would be more what I'd expect to see.

 

[ainsworth74]

Must? What is the reason why? If that is the law, there probably is a perfectly valid reason, but I can't think of one.

To enable access to the track (which could potentially be electrified, on the edge of a embankment or home to other hazards) without having to create a situation, even for a short period of time, where passengers could fall out of the train. Also makes it a heck of a lot easier for crew to access the track on crush loaded services. 159s and 158s down in SWT land have the front set of vestibule doors and the front passenger locked out of use as a work around to not having a cab door.

 

[Helvellyn]

I'm not saying the numbers using those stops are low, I'm saying there aren't all that many stops, so the additional dwell times don't add up quite so much. The fact remains it is a fast service where passengers are going to be travelling a fair distance, hence I believe the stock should be geared to providing more comfort (seats/tables/legroom) rather than more standing room.

These units are being used on an intensively used rail corridor and actually the longer dwell time of a 444/175/Voyager type unit could quickly impact on the number of trains that can operate through that corridor if longer dwell times impact on headways. It's a fact that with more trains running over the existing network every second counts, and anything that causes longer dwell time will either mean fewer trains can run, or cause delays to those already operating. It might not seem much, but with the complexity of the rail timetable a 30 second delay at Manchester could be causing delays at Liverpool/Leeds if that train is then late and other trains can't access/depart platforms.

The 1/3 and 2/3 door layout means that at each vestibule passengers can turn right and left to access the passenger accommodation. It means those leaving the train come from two directions too. This all helps speed up the boarding/alighting process compared to a layout where the doors are at the coach ends, because up to half a coach has to queue to use that one door in single file.

The Class 185s are a very comfortable unit I've found, and I've had no issue making a two hour journey on them. Equally I'm sure the vast majority of TPE's passengers find them suited to the job they do.

 

[starrymarkb]

Yeah, Manchester Airport to Blackpool, what's trans-pennine about THAT!?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Oh, so these 'new' trains are not only not the best for the route and a tack-on to an order which is not appropriate for this part of the country but they are also... less safe than they should be?

TBH there isn't much difference between old and new crash regs in the passenger compartment - the main difference is that the cab must offer increased protection to the driver if striking an obstruction (vehicle/tree etc) on the line. 380s are the only compliant passenger stock* at the moment.

*380s and 70s are the only compliant trains in the UK at the moment. Classes 374 and 700 will also be when delivered, I believe 379s were planned to get a new design of cab in the early stages.

 

[tbtc]

Much lower passenger numbers yes, but, as you'd expect, the TPE route has a more frequent service. Are you saying routes with more passengers should have a less-comfortable service? That doesn't (or didn't, prior to Voyagers) apply to London services, probably the busiest on the network. Many 8/9 coach IC125s and IC225s go in and out of Paddington and Kings Cross each hour. So on one end of the scale you have 158s on the Cambrian, and at the other end of the scale you have INTERCITY stock on services into London. Since Manchester - York is somewhere in the middle, I find it supprising that some (in my very limited experience, seemingly most) trains are only 3-car (even more supprising was that almost seemed to cope, whereas short-formed Cambrian trains don't seem to cope). A formation of between 5 and 7 (444/5-WES-style) coaches would be more what I'd expect to see.

I'm saying that routes with a high churn of passengers (such as Manchester to York, where a large number of people will change at Huddersfield/ Leeds) justify wider doors etc to reduce dwell times.

Comparing one ninety minute route (with hundreds of passengers getting on/off) with another (e.g. Caersws station has twenty thousand passengers departing a year) is meaningless.

You're also comparing "only 3-car" services that run every fifteen minutes with a bi-hourly Cambrian service.

 

[Brunel]

Amazing. 110 mph between Manchester and Scotland. Whatever next? Hardly a technological achievement is it? Maybe for a suburban train it is. There were plenty of Class 87s and coaches available for the Scotland run. Instead of them being overhauled and sent to Europe. What a waste!

Oh my, the dwell times on TPE services operated by mk3s would be horrendous. People take long enough as it is. Plug door would be a small improvement but not much of one! 110mph with far superior acceleration and reliability than the 87s too bear in mind.

I think the 1/3 2/3 layout is perfectly reasonable for what they do as they effectively not act as commuter trains for most of their journeys.

TPE is not a stopping service , so dwell times or acceleration is not an issue. Having travelled on the 350's a lot i certainly wouldn't want to travel from Manchester to Scotland on them.
Milton Keynes to London is long enough. I'm sure it is not beyond our Engineering capacity to increase the 87's reliability?

 

[northwichcat]

TPE is not a stopping service , so dwell times or acceleration is not an issue.

That argument didn't work for using class 170s on Nottingham-London and Hull-London services.

 

[ainsworth74]

That argument didn't work for using class 170s on Nottingham-London and Hull-London services.

Well apart from most/all 170s on Nottingham - London being stopping services you mean? A reasonable point with the 170s on Hull - London but that probably had more to do with HT's finances and wanting the first DMU they could get their hands on. They were fairly quick to upgrade to 222s when they could (and then forced to downgrade to 180s).

 

[Brunel]

TPE is not a stopping service , so dwell times or acceleration is not an issue.

That argument didn't work for using class 170s on Nottingham-London and Hull-London services.

On Hull trains, at least, the 170's were only an interim solution. They were already part of another order, until the 222's were available.

 

[tbtc]

On Hull trains, at least, the 170's were only an interim solution. They were already part of another order, until the 222's were available.

Similarly, 350/4s on the Scottish services are only an interim "solution" until something more suitable is built.

The difference being that the 350/4s will find a home elsewhere pretty easily, whereas spending money overhauling Class 87s would only ever be a temporary thing.

 

[northwichcat]

Well apart from most/all 170s on Nottingham - London being stopping services you mean?

One slow Nottingham-London service I picked at random does 9 intermediate stops. Manchester Airport-Edinburgh also does 9 currently but will be reduced to 8 when Wigan is added and Bolton and Chorley are dropped. So not a lot to choose between the two in terms of which most needs good acceleration.

 

[ainsworth74]

One slow Nottingham-London service I picked at random does 9 intermediate stops. Manchester Airport-Edinburgh also does 9 currently but will be reduced to 8 when Wigan is added and Bolton and Chorley are dropped. So not a lot to choose between the two in terms of which most needs good acceleration.

Key difference however is that [stn]MIA[/stn] to [stn]EDB[/stn] is aproximately 234 miles whilst [stn]NOT[/stn] to [stn]STP[/stn] is aproximately 126 miles. Or to put it another way that Nottingham service averages a stop every fourteen miles whilst the TPE Edinburgh service stops every twenty-six miles! A bit of a difference.

 

[Brunel]

On Hull trains, at least, the 170's were only an interim solution. They were already part of another order, until the 222's were available.

Similarly, 350/4s on the Scottish services are only an interim "solution" until something more suitable is built.

The difference being that the 350/4s will find a home elsewhere pretty easily, whereas spending money overhauling Class 87s would only ever be a temporary thing.

The 87's have gone to Europe so doesn't really matter. But with nearly 8000 hp available, they have been proven to be very reliable and powerful. So do need not be a stop gap, with some refurbished carriages.

 

[Rhydgaled]

TPE is not a stopping service , so dwell times or acceleration is not an issue.

What would the difference in acceleration and dwell times between between a 185 and an OHLE-powered 444 or Electrostar-family-equivalent? The dwell times apparently do matter, though I agree with you not nearly as much as a stopper, but would the acceleration (and an extra coach or two) make up for it?

I'm sure it is not beyond our Engineering capacity to increase the 87's reliability?

Why bother with 87s? aren't there spare DB class 90s?

350/4s on the Scottish services are only an interim "solution" until something more suitable is built.

Indeed, 185s are also now interim (for most of the TPE network) since electrification is supposed to be coming. My argument is that the 'something more suitable' to replace the 185s and 350/4s when the TPE wiring is done should be 5-WES/444-style, not more suburban-type units like 350s and 185s.

 

[455driver]

The 87's have gone to Europe so doesn't really matter. But with nearly 8000 hp available, they have been proven to be very reliable and powerful. So do need not be a stop gap, with some refurbished carriages.

Its all well and good having 8000hp but try putting it onto the rails when its slippery and you only have 8 driven wheels! :roll:

Power is nothing without control.

 

[Haydn1971]

Indeed, 185s are also now interim (for most of the TPE network) since electrification is supposed to be coming. My argument is that the 'something more suitable' to replace the 185s and 350/4s when the TPE wiring is done should be 5-WES/444-style, not more suburban-type units like 350s and 185s.

Have you ever been at Leeds when a 185 arrives ? There's 169 seats on a three car unit, with probably just as many people standing in the peak three hours - I'd hazard an educated guess that at least half get off and as many get back on again, mostly through just the middle four doors - that's about 40 off, 40 on in each set of doors in just a few seconds... That kinda volume doesn't fit through end doors very quickly.

Whilst I agree that an express style train would be great for the express "element" of the service, the busy sections of route dictate that a high capacity discharge/load is required to avoid buggering up the timetables at some of the busiest stations outside London, specifically Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly - this high passenger number movement is made worse by virtue of being mixed in with airport travellers with loads of luggage - TPE isn't at all like the Gatwick or Heathrow Express which essentially bypass dozens of busy stations, they double up as the mid distance commuter service for several busy stations.

Part of the solution for FTPE is for Northern to provide a better commuter service along the same corridor, however I don't believe there are enough paths at the busier stations - an alternative could be to create space, Leeds for example could take commuter services from Sheffield, Castleford, Normanton, Kirkgate, Barnsley etc into a new parallel station next to the HS2 platforms, that could in turn free up space for both commuter and express services in Leeds Station going "trans-pennine" - an opportunity that I suspect sadly won't be pursued.