Expected changes to Northern & TPE with stock changes

[Starmill]

Was it not the Hull service from Manchester that saw most of the Class 170 FTPE fleet usually employed upon ?

Yes, but the majority of the extra doubles or even some triples were going in on the South TPE route, with scotland services being strenghtened by pairs of 350s with some 185s kept on that route to allow that. See posts by kwvr45 for further details.

Edit: And you weren't joking! It's item 1 in North West Tonight! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03wwvh5/North_West_Tonight_03_03_2014/

At the end:
"The Department for Transport says passengers shouldn't be concerned. It says it will find rolling stock from elsewhere and passenger journeys won't be affected."

142 Manchester - Hull?

 

[Bantamzen]

I think we all know which way this is going. When the 319s (?) start to arrive in the North West, the spare diesel capacity will be re-jigged across the Northern network, with Pacers starting to replace 150s / 153s, which will in turn replace 155s / 156s, which again will replace 158s. Then the “spare” 158 capacity will be sub-let to TPE to replace the Southbound 170s. This will be hailed as an investment in the 170 routes by the DfT as it will be the 3 car 158s that will be magically made available…..

(Come on, I’m sure most people are thinking it!)

And if this isn’t to be the solution, are there any other (not Pacer!) free DMUs out there that would be suitable replacements for the 170s? I was always under the impression that they were usually used (aside one or two paths) due to weight restrictions on the Selby – Hull section, and regularly using 185s would cause problems?

But regardless of whatever botched solution is drawn up, this is once again another setback for the network in Northern England. Yes the Northern Hub will eventually be an improvement (subject to the Ordsall Chord approval, otherwise the jobs’s buggered again), but in the meantime it’s a potential loss in the proposed future capacity on routes that are already stretched to breaking point at times. I really wish that there was some way / will to bring forward the electrification of the full TP route to help offset some of these problems this might cause, but no doubt that’s a non-starter.

A really, really cynical person might think that this was a political decision, with the current administration thinking there’s not a lot of support to be gained next year along the TP corridor, but plenty to be gained in the Home Counties….. <cough>

 

[Haydn1971]

So just what other DMU's are going to be available at the time the 170's go to Chiltern ? Realistically speaking, because the 170's were going to be doubled up, DfT could potentially resolve the net loss with four 3 car units as an alternative to four 2+2 units plus the spare that TPE would have had with the 170 fleet

 

[northwichcat]

Read the first post of the electrification and cascades thread - rundown of possible Pacer retirements included there. Not before Dec 2016 I think.

One think I didn't include in the opening post of this thread is there are lots of new and additional services and extensions proposed as part of the Northern Hub with no scheduled start date. Ones which will at present need DMUs that I can think off without going back and checking:
* Additional hourly Halifax-Leeds service
* North Wales to Manchester service extended to the Airport all day
* Either Calder Vale or Hull service extended to Chester via Warrington
* New Stockport-Denton-Victoria service
* Additional services between Greenbank and Stockport
* Additional services on the Hope Valley Line (both express and stopping services.)
* Longer trains on Derby-Crewe service with Manchester Airport extension.

Some of these do need the Ordsall Chord and Piccadilly platforms 15/16 before they can happen.

Network Rail's platform lengthening program also assumes there will be some 6 car trains operating on the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester and Chester-Warrington-Manchester lines and there will 4 car trains on the Buxton line, Mid-Cheshire line, the Clitheroe line and Hope Valley stoppers which will have longer carriages than the types currently used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think we all know which way this is going. When the 319s (?) start to arrive in the North West, the spare diesel capacity will be re-jigged across the Northern network, with Pacers starting to replace 150s / 153s, which will in turn replace 155s / 156s, which again will replace 158s. Then the “spare” 158 capacity will be sub-let to TPE to replace the Southbound 170s. This will be hailed as an investment in the 170 routes by the DfT as it will be the 3 car 158s that will be magically made available…..

While people talk about 319s replacing Pacers most of the services that will switch to EMUs are 150s and 156s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think they will keep the 5th but have to reduce the amount of extra capacity they cant put on South Tpe/Scotland strengthenings. They must be hoping the couple of years leaseback gives them time to find more, possibly spare Scottish diesels if the new franchise operator orders replacement stock straightaway?

The plan was apparently for South TPE to have 2 x 4 car 170 diagrams and the same for Manchester-Hull from May. I'm not sure how many doubled up 185s were planned.

 

[IanXC]

And if this isn’t to be the solution, are there any other (not Pacer!) free DMUs out there that would be suitable replacements for the 170s? I was always under the impression that they were usually used (aside one or two paths) due to weight restrictions on the Selby – Hull section, and regularly using 185s would cause problems?

There's no weight issue per se, other than that there are sprinter differentials which the 170s can use to make up time (185s not permitted SP speeds).

I do live in hope that there is some master plan here which means the news isn't as bad as it sounds. Whether it involves a handful of DMUs from Scotland, transferring Middlesbrough and/or Scarborough away from TP, whether the LO 172s make an appearance to save the day, or whether LM give up some DMUs with their current bits of electrification. I guess on the plus side we're talking about 18 vehicles, which could be resolved from a number of sources, perhaps a series of small changes.

 

[northwichcat]

whether the LO 172s make an appearance to save the day

Wouldn't Chiltern taking on the LO 172s make more sense than taking on the TPE 170s unless maybe it's envisaged Chiltern will give up their small fleet of 172s allowing another operator to take on 12 x 172s when LO no longer require 172s?

The LO 172s would need toilets fitting and other interior modifications if they were to go on to TPE routes.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Having seen the timetable and unit allocations from May I can assure you that TPE could not operate the timetable without the 170s. There is very little additional 2 x Class 185 workings compared to now. The 170s work almost exclusively in multiple. There are 4 units on the South Route per day (2 x 4 car diagrams) and 3 units on the North Route (which work some peak workings all together as a 6 car, and during the day split into a 4 and a 2, with the 2 car working just one quiet Hull - Manchester and back service). The other Hull services see increased capacity by being rostered a 3 car 185 vice a 2 car 170 as now. Without the 170s there are insufficient 2 x 185 diagrams to split down to replace the 170s, without withdrawing some of the extra services or reducing capacity compared to now, neither of which is desirable.

The suggested options are that Chiltern will sublease the 170s back to TPE, or that Northern will be instructed to hand over 8 x 158s to TPE. The latter would cause problems for Northern as I don't think they would have sufficient units spare to release them. Informed sources suggest management at both firms are furious!

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't Chiltern taking on the LO 172s make more sense than taking on the TPE 170s unless...

The LO 172s aren't available in anything like the same timescales though. Despite being 'announced', Gospel Oak - Barking electrification is much later - and getting towards the very end of Chiltern's franchise.

 

[northwichcat]

The suggested options are that Chiltern will sublease the 170s back to TPE, or that Northern will be instructed to hand over 8 x 158s to TPE. The latter would cause problems for Northern as I don't think they would have sufficient units spare to release them. Informed sources suggest management at both firms are furious!

Slight technically with that. The CCTV on the 158s and EMUs was funded by the relevant PTEs and a condition of funding it was either the units will remain in the current area or if they do leave then units already fitted with CCTV will form the replacement.

The 158 CCTV funding was mainly by Metro with TfGM funding the 158s booked to work Calder Vale services so I think there could be a dispute here where DfT will argue they aren't being removed from their current areas as they will still be used in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire but Metro and TfGM will disagree as there will be less trains with CCTV fitted in those areas.

There's also the issue with the standard of the Northern 158s and the lack of a First Class area. If TPE were to take on Scotrail 158s then there would be less of an issue.

Incidentally, TPE have a new Social Media Manager who's sure to get a baptism of fire following the news that TPE will lose the 170s.

 

[47802]

I'm sure TPX would love some northern 158's quite apart from adding 1st class you would have to spend a fortune on the interior alone to get then to a reasonable standard

 

[hwl]

Wouldn't Chiltern taking on the LO 172s make more sense than taking on the TPE 170s unless maybe it's envisaged Chiltern will give up their small fleet of 172s allowing another operator to take on 12 x 172s when LO no longer require 172s?

The LO 172s would need toilets fitting and other interior modifications if they were to go on to TPE routes.

The future TSGN franchisee needs to source some compatible additional DMUs as well so LO might be the best option for that...

 

[Anvil1984]

Having seen the timetable and unit allocations from May I can assure you that TPE could not operate the timetable without the 170s. There is very little additional 2 x Class 185 workings compared to now. The 170s work almost exclusively in multiple. There are 4 units on the South Route per day (2 x 4 car diagrams) and 3 units on the North Route (which work some peak workings all together as a 6 car, and during the day split into a 4 and a 2, with the 2 car working just one quiet Hull - Manchester and back service). The other Hull services see increased capacity by being rostered a 3 car 185 vice a 2 car 170 as now. Without the 170s there are insufficient 2 x 185 diagrams to split down to replace the 170s, without withdrawing some of the extra services or reducing capacity compared to now, neither of which is desirable.

The suggested options are that Chiltern will sublease the 170s back to TPE, or that Northern will be instructed to hand over 8 x 158s to TPE. The latter would cause problems for Northern as I don't think they would have sufficient units spare to release them. Informed sources suggest management at both firms are furious!

8 158s from Northern. Just being cynical but dont Northern have 8 3 car sets. That would be a double whammy if they lost those

 

[47802]

8 158s from Northern. Just being cynical but dont Northern have 8 3 car sets. That would be a double whammy if they lost those

Why would they take 3 car set if they did they would only need 5 not 8.

Of course how northern are going to release those is another matter, time to think about the 317's again perhaps?

If they want look at clawing a few units back by cutting services I suggest they look at the Leeds Sheffield via Barnsley service, 3 trains an hour isn't really justified between Wakefield Kirkgate and Barnsley, and even Wakefield Kirkgate - Leeds outside the commuter peaks isn't that busy.

 

[northwichcat]

Why would they take 3 car set if they did they would only need 5 not 8.

Of course how northern are going to release those is another matter, time to think about the 317's again perhaps?

If we're talking about 2015 then by then I imagine they'll be enough 319s available to run the services on the newly electrified lines so it'll be DMUs Northern would need in lieu not EMUs.

 

[joeykins82]

What's needed IMO is an order of 110mph capable bi-mode EDMUs optimised for outer-suburban/regional routes to operate the current TPE services and also replace the woefully low capacity 170s used by XC. A mix of airline and table seating in 2+2 config but with 1/3+2/3 double doors to keep dwell times down. The same order could also cover EMT's Liverpool-Norwich services, and if a DC variant was produced could operate SWT's services to Salisbury/Exeter/Bristol and Southern's services to Uckfield. This would release plenty of 170s and 158s to be cascaded elsewhere, and the ease of future conversion between EDMU & EMU shouldn't scare the ROSCOs and the DfT from making the investment while there's a rolling electrification programme underway. Right now the law of unintended consequences is playing havoc with the availability of diesel stock because of the nature of the ROSCOs business models.

 

[thealexweb]

More importantly, how soon will it be when the first Pacers are scrapped ?

People mention 2020 but that is the total withdrawal of the class. Surely there is going to be a gradual rundown of the Pacer fleet that has to start fairly soon.

For the foreseeable future not a single DMU can be spared so this process won't start happening for some time.

 

[northwichcat]

For the foreseeable future not a single DMU can be spared so this process won't start happening for some time.

Even if Pacers do start to get withdrawn it's likely they'll be temporarily reintroduced to accelerate the process of giving other older DMUs a properly accessible refurbishment.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Slight technically with that. The CCTV on the 158s and EMUs was funded by the relevant PTEs and a condition of funding it was either the units will remain in the current area or if they do leave then units already fitted with CCTV will form the replacement.

The 158 CCTV funding was mainly by Metro with TfGM funding the 158s booked to work Calder Vale services so I think there could be a dispute here where DfT will argue they aren't being removed from their current areas as

I think all the local authority deals expire with the current franchise.
That's what happened to the local deals in FGW-land.

Also electrification schemes which have not started digging holes for masts are at least 2 years away from releasing DMUs, more like 3.
Bromsgrove is down for completion July 2016 (but might not release any DMUs, depending on what happens to Hereford services).
Walsall-Rugeley is Dec 2017.
GOBLIN is not even in the CP5 project list.

 

[northwichcat]

I think all the local authority deals expire with the current franchise.
That's what happened to the local deals in FGW-land.

I'm not sure that is the case other than with the 144s and 155s where Metro funding has expired and a guarantee has been made to keep them used on West Yorks routes only until the end of the current franchise.

 

[Blindtraveler]

could Chilton not take the 170s, cascade the 172s to LM allowing LM To send 150s and 153s to Northern who would then run them on routes to Barrow, Windermeer and Scarburgh which they could take from TPE?

 

[northwichcat]

could Chilton not take the 170s, cascade the 172s to LM allowing LM To send 150s and 153s to Northern who would then run them on routes to Barrow, Windermeer and Scarburgh which they could take from TPE?

Well that would be a net loss for multiple operators opposed to a net loss for 1.

If Northern were to take on new routes before 2016 they would need to be agreed as part of a franchise extension in the next few weeks.

 

[158722]

I think all the local authority deals expire with the current franchise.
That's what happened to the local deals in FGW-land.

Also electrification schemes which have not started digging holes for masts are at least 2 years away from releasing DMUs, more like 3.
Bromsgrove is down for completion July 2016 (but might not release any DMUs, depending on what happens to Hereford services).
Walsall-Rugeley is Dec 2017.
GOBLIN is not even in the CP5 project list.

Agreed. Doubt Bromsgrove will free up any DMUs, whilst my forecast is the Rugeley project will result in LM giving up its 150s and 153s.

The only other source of cascade DMUs is Scotland, but it doesn't appear any 158s will be displaced from there by the Whifflet and Cumbernauld projects this year, hence only when the E&G goes electric could we expect something heading south.

Until 2016, looking like things will be pretty much as they are now...

 

[Starmill]

The suggested options are that Chiltern will sublease the 170s back to TPE, or that Northern will be instructed to hand over 8 x 158s to TPE. The latter would cause problems for Northern as I don't think they would have sufficient units spare to release them. Informed sources suggest management at both firms are furious!

If Wikipedia is correct on the issue, Northern have 35 2-coach 158s and the 8 3-coach 158s you refer to. If they lost the 3-coach trains, that would be about a quarter of their highest-quality capacity gone. No? That will be other types of sprinters or even the dreaded buses on things like York - Blackpool, Sheffield - Hull/Scarborough and Leeds - Carlisle?

More to the point, is the loss of 8 trains even tenable within their services? Surely they cannot absorb the loss of 8 trains and not have to withdraw some services or de-strengthen things on, for example the Bolton corridor (Oh, remember what just happened there!), the Mid-Cheshire line or the Harrogate line? And that would be chaos!

This gets worse and worse.

OR what about, stuff it, delay the Chiltern Oxford link, it's an additional service which currently has no passengers. Taking trains from Northern or reducing capacity on TPE will cause pain to existing passengers.

 

[Class377/5]

What everyone seems to be forgetting that there will be more 319s spare in 2015 when the 29x 387/1 come in (not to mention from early 2016 the 700s will start releasing more 319s). Using unit cascades they might not have a loss of units with some work but capacity may well be affected.

 

[Starmill]

What everyone seems to be forgetting that there will be more 319s spare in 2015 when the 29x 387/1 come in (not to mention from early 2016 the 700s will start releasing more 319s). Using unit cascades they might not have a loss of units with some work but capacity may well be affected.

Maybe that's true. It could just be that 319s are a bit 'unproven' around here and as soon as some turn up in service it'll become clearer. I guess at the end of the day all we can do is wait and see... but that doesn't mean I don't have concerns about the 319s. Forget what passenger-related condition they are in - how much work will need to go into setting them up electrically? Or for operation with a driver and a guard? Clearly there aren't any guard's control panels in the coaches - could a guard standing on the platform even reach the door controls on a 319 as they are at present? There might be simple answers to all of this, but perhaps it goes some way to explaining the uncertainties.

 

[northwichcat]

What everyone seems to be forgetting that there will be more 319s spare in 2015 when the 29x 387/1 come in (not to mention from early 2016 the 700s will start releasing more 319s). Using unit cascades they might not have a loss of units with some work but capacity may well be affected.

I mentioned in the OP so it's hardly been forgotten about:

2015 -
* Other Chat Moss services go over to EMUs

May 2016 -
* Liverpool to Blackpool service could go over to EMU

However, if we're talking about Northern using a couple of the released DMUs on extending a Victoria-Todmorden service to Blackburn via Burnley, then 8 x DMUs going to TPE then that leaves no DMUs for strengthening existing services in the Northern area until the next franchise. Would you like to tell the 270 passengers who cram on to a single 150 on the 07:17 Manchester-Chester (and sometimes a 142 if Northern are short of 150s) that they can't have extra carriages until the next franchise because Chiltern Railways want to run a new service?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I mentioned in the OP so it's hardly been forgotten about:



However, if we're talking about Northern using a couple of the released DMUs on extending a Victoria-Todmorden service to Blackburn via Burnley, then 8 x DMUs going to TPE then that leaves no DMUs for strengthening existing services in the Northern area until the next franchise. Would you like to tell the 270 passengers who cram on to a single 150 on the 07:17 Manchester-Chester (and sometimes a 142 if Northern are short of 142s) that they can't have extra carriages until the next franchise because Chiltern Railways want to run a new service?

And that is the crux of the problem. The handful of DMUS released by electrification were already earmarked for new or strengthened services in Northern land such as Todmorden - Burnley and the grossly overcrowded Bolton corridor. It was not planned to pack some off to TPE. And even if they do you have problems - the only way to release 158s would be to send the displaced 142s and 150s from the North West to the 158 operated routes, which would mean a significant reduction in capacity there. So that's no relief for Bolton corridor, no Burnley to Todmorden and reduced capacity elsewhere, plus reduced capacity and quality on affected TPE routes just so Chiltern can start a new service to Oxford.

 

[Class377/5]

Maybe that's true. It could just be that 319s are a bit 'unproven' around here and as soon as some turn up in service it'll become clearer. I guess at the end of the day all we can do is wait and see... but that doesn't mean I don't have concerns about the 319s. Forget what passenger-related condition they are in - how much work will need to go into setting them up electrically? Or for operation with a driver and a guard? Clearly there aren't any guard's control panels in the coaches - could a guard standing on the platform even reach the door controls on a 319 as they are at present? There might be simple answers to all of this, but perhaps it goes some way to explaining the uncertainties.

The bell still exists (and works on a few units) so they could in theory support a guard.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And the fall out from the west coast fiasco continues.

I am currently lost for words on this subject. So will remain quiet until such time i feel i can comment without ranting.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is anyone really surprised that the said FTPE announced matter would cause discussion on the matter and has been rather well-timed by certain well-placed staff of a certain organisation to highlight the April 2014 Northern franchise unsigned matter that now seems to be part-and-parcel of both franchises, reading between the lines.