Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[thealexweb]

Reliance on bare statistics doesn't always tell the full story - I wonder how many of those journeys are regular travellers or season ticket holders from Chorley / Preston etc taking advantage of split-ticketing using Blackrod as the boundary for TfGM fares? There's been plenty of that going on for years!

Never the less, since Blackrod has only 1tph the people who have chosen to ticket split at Blackrod have no choice to be at that hourly service that stops at the station thus squeezing out room for locals. 2tph would be more appropriate.

 

[northwichcat]

As I saw a few weeks ago while commuting between Chorley and Bolton, the platforms at Blackrod can currently take 3 x 150/2 with all doors able to open.

Like I've said before if the 319s are reformed in to 3 car trains with corridor connectors then 6 car 319s will be OK for most platforms on the Manchester-Preston line. However, if DfT expect Northern to use only 4 car 319s on that line then they'll be problems.

 

[Des Iroman]

Never the less, since Blackrod has only 1tph the people who have chosen to ticket split at Blackrod have no choice to be at that hourly service that stops at the station thus squeezing out room for locals. 2tph would be more appropriate.

Season ticket holders don't have to be on it. And as for everyone else, the enforcement of the split-ticketing rule would be at best minimal, at worst non-existent!

 

[thealexweb]

Like I've said before if the 319s are reformed in to 3 car trains with corridor connectors then 6 car 319s will be OK for most platforms on the Manchester-Preston line. However, if DfT expect Northern to use only 4 car 319s on that line then they'll be problems.

Shrinking the units is a step backwards. There is little point doing so when its likely only a few years down the line six car EMUs will be insufficient. Platform lengthening are the only long term answer, sooner rather than later.

In the mean time, given that there is the demand it would be better to add in another stopper service per hour. That would take us from a position where Blackrod is only served by one service per hour which may only be formed by a two car DMU, to a situation where there are two service per hour each providing four car EMUs.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

As I saw a few weeks ago while commuting between Chorley and Bolton, the platforms at Blackrod can currently take 3 x 150/2 with all doors able to open.

Interesting - I believed (and it was reported on here IIRC) that one of the sets was locked out of use until Horwich as the platforms weren't long enough (6 x Class 150 cars are a tad over 120m) between there and Chorley to hold them: and Blackrod from my memory of the sectional appendix was the problem!

If that is the case why are we told we cannot have a 2 tph off peak service because the line doesn't have the capacity? Funding has apparently been found, with the council saying the Darwen loop should be extended in 2015-16.

I'm not sure - half-hourly services along the line in either direction are managed until 1100 Mon-Fri and 1130 Sat currently, and from roughly 1630-2000 on the same evenings. Certainly the calls for complete redoubling by some bodies were utter gibberish.

 

[thealexweb]

Interesting - I believed (and it was reported on here IIRC) that one of the sets was locked out of use until Horwich as the platforms weren't long enough (6 x Class 150 cars are a tad over 120m) between there and Chorley to hold them: and Blackrod from my memory of the sectional appendix was the problem!

Please define locked out of use.

What I observed every day during that week was all cars in use throughout the route between Bolton and Chorley. If a door overhung a platform a second conductor would stand in front of the door blocking its use while another conductor would unlock the other doors from another car.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Please define locked out of use.

What I observed every day during that week was all cars in use throughout the route between Bolton and Chorley. If a door overhung a platform a second conductor would stand in front of the door blocking its use while another conductor would unlock the other doors from another car.

Exactly what it says on the tin! Locked out of use, unused, empty etc...

This post from someone who is a guard seems to reaffirm that three units would be in use to / ex-Horwich only, indeed my own post a little further down that thread was the one that established that Blackrod is about 10m too short for 3x150 units. Whether this policy was reconsidered closer to or during the blockade I don't know, but I had always believed that regardless of what measures are taken, you cannot convey passengers in a set locked out of use... Interesting one anyway. I wouldn't have thought any guard would be brave / idiotic enough to break official line on something like that, the benefit isn't worth the cost!

 

[thealexweb]

Exactly what it says on the tin! Locked out of use, unused, empty etc...

This post from someone who is a guard seems to reaffirm that three units would be in use to / ex-Horwich only, indeed my own post a little further down that thread was the one that established that Blackrod is about 10m too short for 3x150 units. Whether this policy was reconsidered closer to or during the blockade I don't know, but I had always believed that regardless of what measures are taken, you cannot convey passengers in a set locked out of use... Interesting one anyway. I wouldn't have thought any guard would be brave / idiotic enough to break official line on something like that, the benefit isn't worth the cost!

My interest in trains is still new so I thought it was work clarifying the terminology.

I can assure you I was able to travel in any of the three DMUs making up the six car service in either direction throughout the week.

Also I have heard people state that Adlington's platforms are too short for six cars. This is not true, there is little overhang on either end but it can be done. Right now though, a temporary fence is in place at north end of the usable platform preventing this, so only the front 11(?) doors are able to open.

 

[northwichcat]

In the mean time, given that there is the demand it would be better to add in another stopper service per hour. That would take us from a position where Blackrod is only served by one service per hour which may only be formed by a two car DMU, to a situation where there are two service per hour each providing four car EMUs.

There have been 2 stopping services since December 2008 - Hazel Grove to Preston and Victoria to Blackpool. The issue for Blackrod is off-peak only one of them stops there. Currently those services are usually 2 and 4 car DMUs so 3 and 6 car EMUs would be a capacity increase - 4 and 8 would be a bigger capacity increase but could the platform lengthening required be justified or would it mean the rear unit being locked out-of-use at most stations?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

is about 10m too short for 3x150 units.

Unless there's a signal right at the end of the platform the front and rear can overhang due to the passenger door locations on 150s. Winsford's platforms aren't long enough for a 350 but every train that stops there is a 350 without any doors locked out-of-use.

 

[WatcherZero]

Northern franchise will reflect ‘angry’ feedback
DfT franchising director Peter Wilkinson stands by franchise consultation. ‘We asked tough questions and yes they will get some people angry,’ he says

The Department for Transport has pledged that it will design the next Northern Rail franchise around the responses to its contentious consultation which included suggestions for
‘trade-offs’ to help modernise the business and fund a new train fleet.

The DfT’s request for views on whether fare rises and service cuts should be used to provide investment funding angered many local authorities in the north who responded by suggesting the department should have placed greater emphasis on raising revenue by increasing train frequencies.

Many insisted fare rises to pay for new trains would be resisted until the Pacer fleet has been replaced. A number suggested the DfT had failed to grasp the importance of the franchise to local economies and the impact fare rises and service reductions would have.

However, DfT franchising director Peter Wilkinson said that he was pleased by the angry reaction and the passions provoked because they provided the basis on which he could specify the new franchise.

“We asked tough questions and yes they will get some people angry and I want them to get angry,” Wilkinson told delegates at the UK Rail Industry Forum conference. “If you want to send me 10,000 postcards saying this is all wrong, that is exactly what I’m looking for. I want to know what you think because I don’t have a blueprint in my drawer. I will design the franchise around what you tell us. So if you’re absolutely committed to protecting services please tell me because we are not entirely sure.”

Wilkinson said the exercise represented a clear change from previous “nice quiet consultations” which he characterised as offering little in the way of genuinely inviting opinions on crucial issues. He added that this consultation was designed to solicit a response, tackle some difficult issues head-on, and demonstrated commitment to clarifying local priorities. He insisted that the DfT would prove it had listened to feedback and taken advice. However, he pointed out that the franchise’s high subsidy levels and investment requirements meant compromises needed to be explored.

“What we did I absolutely stand by,” Wilkinson said. “We asked honest questions.

“A third of Britain’s entire rail subsidy goes to the Northern franchise and there are huge disparities in average fares in that market. We know we have got to rejuvenate that railway, it is largely Victorian and the rolling stock is absolutely awful. But I have only two levers to pull. One is subsidy, the other fares. So I have to ask questions about the kind of trade-offs that could be made to make this a better railway.”

http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2014/09/northern-franchise-will-reflect-‘angry’-feedback/

Hope this isnt a case of Government thinking if its getting lots of angry responses then its doing something right.

 

[158756]

Any idea when the consultation response document will be published?
TSGN's was published same day as the ITT, but then that was delayed by the West Coast mess.

 

[HH]

Hope this isnt a case of Government thinking if its getting lots of angry responses then its doing something right.

Didn't you read what Wilkinson said?

Of course, as the Scottish Referendum proves, politicians can promise that you can get lots of somethings and pay nothing. This seems more honest.

If the North is serious about wanting more money spent on public transport, well then they need to act. Unfortunately it appears that only a minority want it, even if they are vociferous.

 

[yorksrob]

He fails to say why so many rural and short urban routes have been combined into a single franchise which bears little relation to geography and appears to have been designed to be a subsidy sink.

Why not have franchises based on geographical areas instead. There's an extra lever for you Wilkinson.

 

[HH]

Why not have franchises based on geographical areas instead. There's an extra lever for you Wilkinson.

Did you make that feedback to DfT?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2014/09/northern-franchise-will-reflect-‘angry’-feedback/

There's no mention there of Rail North and its position in jointly working up the specification and ITT for the Northern and TPE franchises.
Apart from careful statements supporting the process from Richard Leese for Rail North, we are none the wiser about who these people are or what their role is.
Meanwhile we see evidence of PTE disaffection with the recent fares increase (even though they were said to have jointly signed up to the current franchise deal).
I should think a lot of head-banging will happen before the ITT emerges, not least because of the new panic about English devolution.
Rail North is due to become a "legal entity" this month.

 

[northwichcat]

According to the Northern Echo the RMT are claiming Scarborough will retain TPE services but Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool North, Cleethorpes and Windermere will not.

THE RMT rail union has been accused of scaremongering after it claimed a number of seaside towns could see train services withdrawn.

The union said it was alarmed that decisions appeared to have already been made over the withdrawal of numerous destinations served by First TransPennine Express.

It said only Scarborough, in North Yorkshire, was to survive from a list including Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool North, Cleethorpes and Windermere.

The RMT claims arose from a briefing entitled Network Rail/First TransPennine Express Service Recovery Plan given to its members before the end of the recent consultation over the shape of the next franchise.

RMT Acting General Secretary Mick Cash said: “The withdrawal of the service to numerous towns would be a hammer blow to the people who rely on the service and to the local economy.

“RMT is seeking clarification from Transport Minister Patrick McLoughlin on the validity of the briefing that was given to our members and an assurance that the current destinations covered by the Transpennine Express will remain protected.”

A spokesman for First TransPennine said the RMT was “unreasonably scaremongering”.

He said: “This is nothing to do with what the franchise will look like after 2016. It is the Department for Transport that will decide what the map will look like and nothing has been decided yet.”

The DfT has been consulting about a possible transfer of services from TransPennine, which is regarded as an inter-city operator, to Northern Rail, which runs numerous local routes.

It is expected to announce later this autumn what the terms of the new TransPennine and Northern franchises will be when it sets out the specification against which companies will bid.

Not sure what service pattern the RMT think will operate if Blackpool isn't to retain TPE but Scarborough is. Maybe a token service between Manchester and Scarborough using 185s?

 

[thealexweb]

I doubt the above statements from the RMT are true. If it was they would be abandoning the true Manchester to Preston line completely. They would not be allowed to essentially close half of Transpennine North West. Northern Rail simply does not, and will not for a long time, have capacity the provide adequate replacement services. Just for Northern Rail to provide the Blackpool North and Barrow services would require a dozen 158s at the least.

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt the above statements from the RMT are true. If it was they would be abandoning the true Manchester to Preston line completely. They would not be allowed to essentially close half of Transpennine North West. Northern Rail simply does not, and will not for a long time, have capacity the provide adequate replacement services. Just for Northern Rail to provide the Blackpool North and Barrow services would require a dozen 158s at the least.

The bit about Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere transferring to Northern is something that DfT included in the TPE consultation. The idea seems to be for Northern to run Blackpool North to Manchester Airport using 319s as soon as it becomes electric. The consultation also asked about whether Barrow and Windermere should retain direct services to Manchester and if they should what level of service is required, emphasising that they cannot continue to be served as portions on Manchester Airport-Blackpool services once that service has gone electric. There could well be interim measures like there were when TPE took over Preston services in the first place.

The only thing that suggests something not included in the consultation is the Scarborough reference. However, the HLOS assumes a Scarborough-Blackpool diesel service when Manchester-York goes electric so the reference about Scarborough keeping TPE services but not Blackpool suggests they think something will happen which isn't in the HLOS or implied as a preferred option in the consultation document.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think the union is being a bit disingenuous in briefing politicians and newspapers ther services are ending when they are in reality transferring to a different operator.

 

[Bradders6570]

Whatever happens I sincerely hope Northern are allocated new stock so they can dispense with the awful and frankly embarassing 142 Pacer units. Having travelled all over the country by rail they are by far the most outdated,uncomfortable and noisy units on our railways. They come from a time were investment in Rail was virtually nothing and saving money was all that mattered and yet nearly 35 years later we still have them !

 

[WatcherZero]

17,000 responses to the consultation apparently, a record number of responses to a franchise consultation. (usually these kind of consultations only attract responses in the late tens or early hundreds).

 

[northwichcat]

17,000 responses to the consultation apparently, a record number of responses to a franchise consultation. (usually these kind of consultations only attract responses in the late tens or early hundreds).

I was for two franchises which combined cover a much wider area and population than most franchises. For instance, the population of Yorkshire & Humber is similar to the population of Scotland, yet Yorkshire & Humber makes up less than half of the area covered by Northern and TPE.

 

[yorksrob]

It was also a particularly controversial consulatation document, so it's not surprising it's stirred up some interest !

 

[swt_passenger]

Meanwhile a TPE track access application has appeared for the eventual 6 tph service, 'as instructed by DfT'.

The track access rights sought by this application are based on the ITSS and
seek to optimise the infrastructure investments to be completed by December 2016.
The ITSS drives major changes to the proposed timetable making optimal use of the
Northern Hub, including the Ordsall Chord. This provides for the following hourly
pattern of services:

 Liverpool Lime Street – Newcastle via Manchester Victoria
 Liverpool Lime Street – York via Manchester Victoria
 Manchester Airport – Middlesbrough via Manchester Victoria
 Manchester Airport – Scarborough via Manchester Victoria
 Manchester Piccadilly – Hull
 Manchester Piccadilly – Selby

Service operating via Manchester Victoria will have limited stops between Liverpool and Leeds
to minimise journey times. Manchester Piccadilly services will make calls at intermediate station
such as Marsden providing improved links to the regions cities.

In addition to the firm rights required to support the above service pattern contingent rights
are also sought to:

 extend the Liverpool Lime Street – York service to Newcastle;
 extend Manchester Piccadilly – Selby service to Hull;
 introduce an additional service between Liverpool Lime Street – Stockport via
Warrington; and,
 provide a further Sheffield via Manchester service in line with DfT requirements.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ection 17 application (consultation copy).pdf

Basically everything you'd have expected, and as regularly discussed here.

 

[northwichcat]

Meanwhile a TPE track access application has appeared for the eventual 6 tph service, 'as instructed by DfT'.

Basically everything you'd have expected, and as regularly discussed here.

The reason that's happened is because DfT think there's a risk of GNWR taking a path required for North TPE as was discussed in the thread about GNWR getting Network Rail approval to run a 2 hourly Leeds-Huddersfield-Victoria-Warrington-London service, interworked with a 2 hourly Blackpool-Warrington-London service.

 

[Deerfold]

I was for two franchises which combined cover a much wider area and population than most franchises. For instance, the population of Yorkshire & Humber is similar to the population of Scotland, yet Yorkshire & Humber makes up less than half of the area covered by Northern and TPE.

You were?

That doesn't explain somewhere in the region of a hunded-fold larger response.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the union is being a bit disingenuous in briefing politicians and newspapers ther services are ending when they are in reality transferring to a different operator.

RMT being "a bit disingenuous"....surely not..

 

[edwin_m]

RMT being "a bit disingenuous"....surely not..

We should welcome the improvement on their default mode of "very disingenuous".

 

[Andyh82]

Is there any need for a 6th service per hour? The frequency on North Transpennine is perfectly fine. What the service needs is more carriages to stop the over crowding that seems to occur all day every day.

I don't like the idea of TPE services calling at the likes of Marsden, surely the whole point of an express service is that it doesn't stop at small stations like that.

 

[Anvil1984]

Is there any need for a 6th service per hour? The frequency on North Transpennine is perfectly fine. What the service needs is more carriages to stop the over crowding that seems to occur all day every day.

I don't like the idea of TPE services calling at the likes of Marsden, surely the whole point of an express service is that it doesn't stop at small stations like that.

Its been in the pipe line for quite a while that there will be 2 TPE semi fasts who stop at 2 out of the 4 (?) intermediate stops between Stalybridge and Huddersfield replacing the Northern stopper which gets in the way sometimes. Theres still 4 express services so its not a big deal really

I just want to know if TPE will have enough units to potentially enable Newcastle to Liverpool and Hull to Manchester to go half hourly whilst retaining Middlesborough and Scarborough services especially if they take on the EMT Liverpool to Nottingham portions as speculated. I've ran out of fingers and toes but I reckon it ll be a stretch, the 9 class 170s going down south won't help