Expected changes to Northern & TPE with stock changes

[northwichcat]

Perhaps I am mistaken in my analysis, but I would consider the Manchester to Scotland corridor to be a truer example of a long-distance regional route, particularly with the removal of the Bolton stops, than the “core” Transpennine network over the Pennines is these days, with its’ mix of short distance commuting and longer distance traffic.

The Liverpool-Newcastle service starting in a few weeks time will be just as much an Intercity style service as Manchester Airport-Scotland.

The Glasgow-London and Glasgow-Birmingham services carry a lot of commuter traffic in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.

 

[43074]

But the Pendolino has the doors in the wrong place in the same way that the IEP trains does, so that is not going to work either.

But the WCML ideally needs 125mph with tilt, and baby pendos provide that: for capacity apart from anything else.

 

[RobShipway]

The Liverpool-Newcastle service starting in a few weeks time will be just as much an Intercity style service as Manchester Airport-Scotland.

The Glasgow-London and Glasgow-Birmingham services carry a lot of commuter traffic in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.

So if the Glasgow - Birmingham services carry a lot of commuters, then it I surely better that they have carriages running these services that have doors at 1/3 and 2/3 within the carriage in the same way that the Class 350's currently do. That being the case then unless you redesign the baby pendolino carriages, then they will not be adequate for the job.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the WCML ideally needs 125mph with tilt, and baby pendos provide that: for capacity apart from anything else.

Yes, but as the Glasgow - Birmingham are Inter City Commuter trains, then it needs trains that can tilt that have doors at 1/3 and 2/3 at the side of the carriage that can do 125mph. There is nothing like that on the market, other than perhaps Bombardier Adventra.

Also, getting this back on track a little if FGW has any spare Class 166's could those not be used in place of the class 170's at all? FGW are likely within the next few years once the GWML has been electrified are going to be releasing class 166's as they get hold of Class 377 electrostars to take over the running of the Reading - London Paddington stopping services.

Another alternative for TPE, is to hire coaches and class 68 locos from DRS.

 

[northwichcat]

So if the Glasgow - Birmingham services carry a lot of commuters, then it I surely better that they have carriages running these services that have doors at 1/3 and 2/3 within the carriage in the same way that the Class 350's currently do. That being the case then unless you redesign the baby pendolino carriages, then they will not be adequate for the job.

Currently Virgin provide the only direct service between Crewe and Warrington and between Warrington and Wigan. They also provide a high proportion of the direct services between Wigan and Preston and between Preston and Lancaster and between Carlisle and Penrith/Oxenholme. Really the Glasgow-London services are Intercity services south of Crewe and local services north of Crewe.

If the proposed LM Preston-Birmingham slow service gets introduced alongside the proposed WC Blackpool-Euston service the amount of local traffic on the Glasgow-London service will decrease.

 

[sprinterguy]

So if the Glasgow - Birmingham services carry a lot of commuters, then it I surely better that they have carriages running these services that have doors at 1/3 and 2/3 within the carriage in the same way that the Class 350's currently do. That being the case then unless you redesign the baby pendolino carriages, then they will not be adequate for the job.

With thinking like that we won't have any stock with carriage end doors before long. I'd still contend that the majority of passengers travelling on the Birmingham to Scotland trains are making longer journeys of over an hour or an hour and a half, despite the influx of commuters making short hops in the North West (which will only be at certain times of day).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, getting this back on track a little if FGW has any spare Class 166's could those not be used in place of the class 170's at all?

The 165s and 166s are expected to be transferred to FGWs' West of England services - Network Rail have made provision for the necessary infrastructure improvement works.

 

[RobShipway]

With thinking like that we won't have any stock with carriage end doors before long. I'd still contend that the majority of passengers travelling on the Birmingham to Scotland trains are making longer journeys of over an hour or an hour and a half, despite the influx of commuters making short hops in the North West (which will only be at certain times of day).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not just my thinking though, as inter city trains on all routes are becoming more like commuter trains. For example, there are more people that get on any of the IC125 services at Didcot Parkway, Reading and Slough when these trains stop there, then there is people on the trains before these stops. Why, because those people want to commute quicker into London rather than having the hour plus travelling time using the local services. This situation is the same on any part of the network where you have both local and inter city trains, people will always go for the faster Inter City train over the local train.

As has already been mentioned within this thread, along the path between Birmingham - Glasgow, TPE are basically providing the local service, rather than the Inter City service which is currently being provided by Virgin, so as such any train stock that TPE would be using would be commuter stock.

 

[transmanche]

For example, there are more people that get on any of the IC125 services at Didcot Parkway, Reading and Slough when these trains stop there, then there is people on the trains before these stops. Why, because those people want to commute quicker into London rather than having the hour plus travelling time using the local services.

Specifically, in the case of Slough, the services have been recast since Thames Trains was merged into FGW . There are more Oxford services operated by HST, the Turbo-operated Bedwyn services no longer call, and the Reading services are now all-stations.

In short; there used to be fast Turbo services to London, but now they're operated by HSTs instead.

 

[evergreenadam]

Currently Virgin provide the only direct service between Crewe and Warrington and between Warrington and Wigan. They also provide a high proportion of the direct services between Wigan and Preston and between Preston and Lancaster and between Carlisle and Penrith/Oxenholme. Really the Glasgow-London services are Intercity services south of Crewe and local services north of Crewe.

If the proposed LM Preston-Birmingham slow service gets introduced alongside the proposed WC Blackpool-Euston service the amount of local traffic on the Glasgow-London service will decrease.

What stations would the LM Preston-Birmingham service call at? Any details of frequency or rolling stock?

 

[northwichcat]

What stations would the LM Preston-Birmingham service call at? Any details of frequency or rolling stock?

It would the hourly Birmingham-Liverpool service (which currently calls at Winsford/Acton Bridge and Hartford) diverted to Preston using 350s. It would do the usual stops to Crewe then Hartford, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western and Preston. The Euston-Crewe service would be extended to Liverpool calling at Winsford/Acton Bridge and Hartford.

 

[deltic08]

The Liverpool-Newcastle service starting in a few weeks time will be just as much an Intercity style service as Manchester Airport-Scotland.

The Glasgow-London and Glasgow-Birmingham services carry a lot of commuter traffic in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.

I agree. As I have said previously, Manchester-Glasgow is further than Euston-Manchester and Liverpool-Newcastle the same distance as Kings Cross-York. Why not IEP or baby Pendos on mostly 125mph routes? Five stops in 170 miles hardly requires suburban loading doors. Why terminate at Newcastle? Continue to Edinburgh and back to Manchester or Liverpool via Carlisle and Preston and vice versa. I would prefer Inter City comfort every time.

 

[Manchester77]

I agree. As I have said previously, Manchester-Glasgow is further than Euston-Manchester and Liverpool-Newcastle the same distance as Kings Cross-York. Why not IEP or baby Pendos on mostly 125mph routes? Five stops in 170 miles hardly requires suburban loading doors. Why terminate at Newcastle? Continue to Edinburgh and back to Manchester or Liverpool via Carlisle and Preston and vice versa. I would prefer Inter City comfort every time.

Manchester - Scotland services should really be with ICWC in my opinion. I think the next ICWC franchise is prime time to transfer the routes because the operators will be looking into new EMUs for additional services; if you time it right then you might even be able to do a combined order of EMUs for ICWC, Manchester - Scotland and ICXC following 3rd rail conversion. IEP would require gauge clearence (due to the 26m coaches) and might not be worth it for 1tph. If you go for a tilting train then you'd have to install TASS on the parts of the route you want the train to travel at 125mph so for what it's worth you'd be better off using a 110mph EMU which will be faster than most traffic seconded only by intercity stuff. I'd also say that if you opt for a fleet of end door intercity style EMUs then you'd be better off transferring the route to ICXC or ICEC so that the TPE operator doesn't end up with a microfleet of intercity EMUs when the rest of the stock has a suburban layout. Also I don't really see the point in extending the service to Edinburgh I don't really think it'd be worth the cost of running it, you'd need extra EMUs to operate it because it's a longer route and also it mostly duplicates other services and where it doesn't there are faster and easier ways to link the stops to Edinburgh.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Also I don't really see the point in extending the service to Edinburgh I don't really think it'd be worth the cost of running it, you'd need extra EMUs to operate it because it's a longer route and also it mostly duplicates other services and where it doesn't there are faster and easier ways to link the stops to Edinburgh.

In that case why bother going to Newcastle? Cut it back to York and save buying even more EMUs.......:roll:

 

[Aictos]

In that case why bother going to Newcastle? Cut it back to York and save buying even more EMUs.......:roll:

I'm more concerned with the idea that a Liverpool to Newcastle service needs to be extended to Edinburgh, ever thought of crewing issues?

Although please correct me if I'm wrong but are not the TPEs timed to do York to Newcastle the same as EC services, I know TPE recently did extend some services to Edinburgh though due to engineering works on the WCML

 

[transmanche]

Although please correct me if I'm wrong but are not the TPEs timed to do York to Newcastle the same as EC services, I know TPE recently did extend some services to Edinburgh though due to engineering works on the WCML

There's only 3 or 4 mins between the 'slow' EC services and TPE, as they both call at Northallerton, Darlington, Durham. (Although the TPEs occasionally call at Thirsk and alternate trains call at Chester-le-Street.)

The 'fast' ECs only stop at Darlington, so are about 12 mins faster.

For journeys between Newcastle and Manchester, more often than not, NRE suggests that EC to York and changing to TPE there is faster than the direct train.

 

[deltic08]

For journeys between Newcastle and Manchester, more often than not, NRE suggests that EC to York and changing to TPE there is faster than the direct train.

Easy for NRE to suggest this but not easy for elderly or disabled to change platforms as connecting trains do not always use adjacent platforms at York. Through trains offer an easier journey and no missed connections through late running

 

[transmanche]

Easy for NRE to suggest this but not easy for elderly or disabled to change platforms as connecting trains do not always use adjacent platforms at York. Through trains offer an easier journey and no missed connections through late running

Indeed. Unfortunately the same often happens with Advance tickets; rather than getting a seat on a through train, you're expected to change at York.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed. Unfortunately the same often happens with Advance tickets; rather than getting a seat on a through train, you're expected to change at York.

Journey planners also sometimes suggest changing at Manchester Oxford Rd instead of Manchester Piccadilly where a change at Piccadilly would result in alighting a train at platform 13/14 and boarding the connecting service from the same platform while changing at Oxford Road means using stairs/lifts.

 

[transmanche]

Journey planners also sometimes suggest changing at Manchester Oxford Rd instead of Manchester Piccadilly where a change at Piccadilly would result in alighting a train at platform 13/14 and boarding the connecting service from the same platform while changing at Oxford Road means using stairs/lifts.

That's often because of the amount of padding added to services terminating at Piccadilly, the journey planners believe that the train will somehow be overtaken between Oxford Road and Piccadilly!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Journey planners also sometimes suggest changing at Manchester Oxford Rd instead of Manchester Piccadilly where a change at Piccadilly would result in alighting a train at platform 13/14 and boarding the connecting service from the same platform while changing at Oxford Road means using stairs/lifts.

Except there are no lifts at Oxford Road (but they are under construction ).
One of the exasperating things about the way ATW services are handled there is that they are the only ones scheduled to use P3 eastbound.
Fine if you are then going west/north, but a real bind if your ticket says you have to change for the airport or other points east.

NR seem to use P3 as a regulating point at other times.
An on-time Liverpool-Airport service will often be switched to P3 to allow a late-running TPE service (also going to the airport!) to pass on P4.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are there many changes envisaged in the future usage of platform 1 at Manchester Oxford Road railway station once the Ordsall Chord project is eventually approved and constructed ?

 

[northwichcat]

That's often because of the amount of padding added to services terminating at Piccadilly, the journey planners believe that the train will somehow be overtaken between Oxford Road and Piccadilly!

Also journey planners are programmed to allow at least 5 minutes to connect at Oxford Rd and at least 10 minutes to connect at Piccadilly regardless of the platforms used.

 

[snowball]

Are there many changes envisaged in the future usage of platform 1 at Manchester Oxford Road railway station once the Ordsall Chord project is eventually approved and constructed ?

I don't know about any changes arising from the Chord, but a couple of years later when the extra through platforms at Picc are built, I believe it is proposed that alternate westbound trains at OR will use platforms 1 and 2. Similarly alternate eastbound trains will use 3 and 4. Pity they aren't a pair of islands.

Similarly at Picc, westbound through trains will alternate between 15 and 16, and eastbound ones between 13 and 14, but there they will at least be a pair of islands, so you will go to one place to catch eastbound trains and another for westbound.

 

[Emyr]

Travelling Chelford to Bolton, the default change is Piccadilly:

Northern Crewe-Picadilly departs CEL 17:09, arrive MAN 17:38, then catch the TPEx (MIA-BPN/BIF) 17:46. (Same an hour later I think).

8 minutes for a P5-P14 change is stressful, especially with inspectors between P11-14 and the rest of the station. A few minutes late on the NR train could mean arriving BON 30 minutes later.

I'm not sure if there's been a timing change, but I have found it less stressful to change at Stockport for EMT Nottingham-Liverpool train then change for the TPEx at Piccadilly. This means staying on P4 at Stockport and staying on P14 at Piccadilly.

 

[northwichcat]

Going back to the original topic - Northern are claiming they won't be losing any units to other operators before 2016 and Anglia are now in a position where they can extend leases on their small fleets of 153s, 156s and 170s. Electrification schemes in other parts of England & Wales won't release DMUs in time. I think that leaves cascading Scotrail units directly or indirectly to TPE as the only option left which won't involve areas losing capacity.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Going back to the original topic - Northern are claiming they won't be losing any units to other operators before 2016 and Anglia are now in a position where they can extend leases on their small fleets of 153s, 156s and 170s. Electrification schemes in other parts of England & Wales won't release DMUs in time. I think that leaves cascading Scotrail units directly or indirectly to TPE as the only option left which won't involve areas losing capacity.

Why, in this case, cannot the ScotRail units go directly to Chiltern ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why, in this case, cannot the ScotRail units go directly to Chiltern ?

Doesn't it depend on what the new Scotrail franchisee wants to do with them?
I don't think you can presume they are "spare".
We'll know in September.

 

[WatcherZero]

To be honest Transport Scotland have let it be known for a while that they want a young fleet (and informally they want everything to be class 170 or newer if possible) If Chiltern hadnt got to the 170's first it may well have been Scotland taking them from TPE.

 

[Manchester77]

A helpful map of 319 introduction produced by user class377/5 hope you don't mind me sharing it on here:

319 Introduction by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr

 

[snowball]

The text is hard to read, especially in the key.

 

[Manchester77]

If you click on the image a bigger version on flickr will come up