Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, says battery powered acceptable but 'last mile diesel' rather than full bimode or DEMU conversion of existing EMU not allowed.

What does "last mile diesel" mean, though? There are many Northern lines where I think an EMU with an engine capable of moving it at a lower top speed would do well - Barrow, for instance.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Out of interest, how many Northern routes could have all stations staffed and gated to prevent revenue loss? Also, would this be more or less efficient than retaining conductors on all trains?

Gated would be impossible at most smaller Northern stations due to the number of entries/exits and allowing step free access between platforms. Roaming RPIs or no revenue checks are the only option at most Northern stations. Also most staffed Northern stations are only staffed by one person for one or two shifts, so if that member of staff has to do something (like go to the toilet or assist a disabled person) then the ticket office is temporarily unstaffed.

 

[swt_passenger]

What does "last mile diesel" mean, though? There are many Northern lines where I think an EMU with an engine capable of moving it at a lower top speed would do well - Barrow, for instance.

Isn't the term 'last mile diesel' usually only used with reference to freight locos that would use wires on the mainline but still enter depots and yards where wiring would be a hindrance, e.g. at a container terminal?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does say onboard staff is still required unless all stations on the route are manned (i.e. gated to prevent revenue loss and to provide disability support). It encourages the redeployment of guard into onboard customer service/revenue protection role.

While I accept that there are good reasons for staff to be worried about this, I can see the idea of driver-operated doors (at the least, driver-released doors) as a sensible thing with the guard remaining in a revenue and customer service role. He will be able to do that job much more effectively if he doesn't have to go and operate the doors every 2-3 minutes on some routes.

Neil

 

[WatcherZero]

What does "last mile diesel" mean, though? There are many Northern lines where I think an EMU with an engine capable of moving it at a lower top speed would do well - Barrow, for instance.

Neil

A 'last mile' or 'limp home mode' might mean top speed reduced from 100mph to 10/20mph and large reduction in acceleration performance and a short range of only a couple of hundred miles due to limited fuel capacity. Essentialy they are only envisaged to allow a passenger train with a fault or OHLE blackout/downed elsewhere on the line to limp to a siding or next station or to allow a electric locomotive to carry a freight train on a short 10 km or less unelectrified branch line to a goods yard.

Presumably the Government has specifically banned them from the contract as they don't want bidders trying to do a Bi Mode on the cheap or trying to use an Electric Locomotive and LHCS rake that would limp along off the wires.

 

[jopsuk]

Roger Ford (Captain Deltic) seems to interpret that 442+Loco is specifically BANNED for Transpenine, so I'm curious as to why some people seem to think the exact opposite?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the term 'last mile diesel' usually only used with reference to freight locos that would use wires on the mainline but still enter depots and yards where wiring would be a hindrance, e.g. at a container terminal?

That was my thought, but I did wonder if it would preclude a 110mph EMU with a 75mph diesel capability, which would suit North West Express very well. (If the Barrow line was wired, the diesel could then be removed, or just used around the coast).

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Roger Ford (Captain Deltic) seems to interpret that 442+Loco is specifically BANNED for Transpenine, so I'm curious as to why some people seem to think the exact opposite?

Banned for Northern, permitted for TPE. He's probably tried to add commentary two long documents before he's had time to digest it and got mixed up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my view a 6th TPE train per hour is mad. I think they would have done better to insist the original 4 (the 5th is also mad in my view) were all 6x23m or 8x20m throughout.

What *is* it about the UK and running small DMUs around at high frequencies?

Neil

 

[40129]

While I accept that there are good reasons for staff to be worried about this, I can see the idea of driver-operated doors (at the least, driver-released doors) as a sensible thing with the guard remaining in a revenue and customer service role. He will be able to do that job much more effectively if he doesn't have to go and operate the doors every 2-3 minutes on some routes.

Neil

Alternatively, the trains could be designed/modified to have guard's panels at every door as per cl-350 and cl-507/8. I accept that there might still be a problem on units with end doors only, e.g. cl-155/6/8, but IIRC new DOO conversions have to have train mounted cameras. I doubt that there would be sufficient space for suitable in-cab monitors to be fitted to most of the existing stock.

 

[johntea]

Minimum departures from Leeds during specified interval

22:00 - 01:59
Castleford
3

Does that mean we finally get an additional service of some form to Woodlesford and Castleford, for example at around 23:05?

 

[northwichcat]

In my view a 6th TPE train per hour is mad. I think they would have done better to insist the original 4 (the 5th is also mad in my view) were all 6x23m or 8x20m throughout.

What *is* it about the UK and running small DMUs around at high frequencies?

Idea is for Manchester-Hull services to be semi-fast services and Liverpool-Newcastle and Airport-York services to be Intercity.

Manchester-Hull will include calls at 6 stations between Piccadilly and Leeds. The others will only call at Huddersfield between Victoria and Leeds. So it's a bit like LM and Virgin Euston services under the same franchise, rather than 6 semi-fast trains.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It does say onboard staff is still required unless all stations on the route are manned (i.e. gated to prevent revenue loss and to provide disability support). It encourages the redeployment of guard into onboard customer service/revenue protection role. Finally it says they expect the franchise head count to be significantly increased due to extra services and customer service requirement.....

Can you possibly point out where the requirement to 'man' and 'gate' stations is?

All I have seen in it, so far, is to provide a facility to buy tickets, for young people and those without cards (cash/card TVM??), to make sure there is provision of information about the service (visual/audio CIS??) and to make sure the removal of the guards would not adversely affect revenue collection.

....Yes, the earlier quote is taken out of context and misleading. If anything the ITT suggests an increase in staffing levels, which can only be a good thing.

I admit I haven't read it all, but I can't find anything to suggest that staff levels will increase. More TVMs, information screens/PAs and remote help points yes, but not staff. Any pointers here please?

 

[Starmill]

*hyperventilating* *reads frantically* This is good, isn't it? Some of these improvements seemed beyond consideration... but... now they've been specified? Wow.

Take it I'm not the only one who sees the DfT's 'message to guards'? It is "watch out, we're coming to get you". Will it stop with Northern?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my view a 6th TPE train per hour is mad. I think they would have done better to insist the original 4 (the 5th is also mad in my view) were all 6x23m or 8x20m throughout.

What *is* it about the UK and running small DMUs around at high frequencies?

Neil

But it's the same train, just the current Huddersfield stopper extended and turned into something actually useful. The Standege route already supports 6tph each way. What's the problem? Longer trains will arrive with electrification. If that ever happens...

 

[WatcherZero]

Can you possibly point out where the requirement to 'man' and 'gate' stations is?

4.81 of Consultation response

Bidders for the Northern franchise will therefore be expected to gradually introduce Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) on parts of the network, with the driver being responsible for all safety aspects of the train, including operating the train doors. This will free up the second member of staff on board to focus on serving passengers – including by helping those with mobility impairments or other disabilities – selling and checking tickets and providing a sense of security. We expect the second member of staff to be suitably trained and customer-focused. Bidders will only be allowed to plan to operate trains without a second member of staff on board where it can be demonstrated that passengers will still be able to purchase a ticket at the station or on-board the train, that they will still have access to appropriate information about the service and that they will feel no less safe and secure.

There is also a section on revenue protection where bidders are required to crack down on it and recover £38m lost revenue. For example Northern has introduced a policy on the 319's being rolled out from next week that guards will be banned from sitting in the rear cab and must be visible and patrolling the train at all times.

 

[Clip]

Seems to specifically preclude D78 or pacer refurbishment programs, someone is gonna be disappointed. Must be new not recycled carriages unless LHCS.

Though it does say by 2020 which doesn't count them out at all depending how quick they could build them.

 

[Wolfie]

*hyperventilating* *reads frantically* This is good, isn't it? Some of these improvements seemed beyond consideration... but... now they've been specified[/]? Wow.

Take it I'm not the only one who sees the DfT's 'message to guards'? It is "watch out, we're coming to get you". Will it stop with Northern?

Having evaluated responses to ITTs for Govt, albeit not in the transport field, be cautious. If bidders seek derogations/offer non-compliant (eg refurbished Pacers for limited services) options and indicate a significant financial saving there will be VAST pressure from HMT to give them a proper consideration.

WRT guards I think they were already an endangered species and today confirms it!

Oh, and if DfT are effectively saying Pacers have no future they better be ready for a minimum £800k (the 144e prototype costs) bill from Porterbrook in a letter from me learned friends threatening a judicial review otherwise...

 

[WatcherZero]

Government never asked Porterbrook to do it and gave every indication they wouldn't be interested, they've also not as yet banned them from other franchises. Porterbrook don't have a leg to stand on for speculating with their own money on the chance the Government would do a U-turn over pacers.

 

[talltim]

Does the Transpennine ITT say no Pacers?

 

[Bantamzen]

Though it does say by 2020 which doesn't count them out at all depending how quick they could build them.

But then if you are being required to procure a large fleet of new stock, surely it makes sense to increase that order to cover any possible gaps in cascades rather than then also going for a smaller fleet of stock that will almost certainly not be compatible with your new fleet? Yes it's more expensive to invest in, but provides a more flexible fleet especially if the new stock can ne ordered in different configurations? I suspect today's announcement has not gone down well at Vivarail.

 

[The Ham]

There are two types of guards, the first which walk the train (akin to SWT's) which the northern ITT (and therefore the DfT) seem to want rather than the second type (as a passenger I would be included to agree). The second type sit in their cab and open and close doors and to the public appear to do little else.

I would suggest that the rail unions would have a hard fight on their hands to persuade the public that the second type are worth keeping if the alternative is getting the first type. Whilst doing away with other staff, other than the driver, is unlikely to go down too well with many (other than TOC's).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Government never asked Porterbrook to do it and gave every indication they wouldn't be interested, they've also not as yet banned them from other franchises. Porterbrook don't have a leg to stand on for speculating with their own money on the chance the Government would do a U-turn over pacers.

I would suggest that the reason that they have been banned form Northern is because of their widespread miss use on services for which they were not suited. That is not to say that other TOC's wouldn't do the same, just that with a better range of rolling stock to begin with it is unlikely that it would be such a big problem.

 

[theblackwatch]

Does the Transpennine ITT say no Pacers?

Yes- pages 92/93.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I'm not a supporter of single manning. And I have a great degree of sympathy with the safety role of guards in (thankfully rare) contingency situations.

I do, however, think that - precisely because contingency situations ARE rare - and because of the rural nature of much of "Northern" - there is a huge degree of merit in the proposal that the driver should operate all aspects of the train in normal circumstances, leaving the second staff member to attend to customers, including ensuring revenue.

That said, I'd still have the second person fully safety trained (pretty much - a "guard"), and they would be required to instantly drop all other duties and responsibilities and adopt their traditional safety role, if and when a contingency situation arises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said, I'd still have the second person fully safety trained (pretty much - a "guard"), and they would be required to instantly drop all other duties and responsibilities and adopt their traditional safety role, if and when a contingency situation arises.

Yes, to me this makes sense. Modern technology can provide things like on-train cameras for driver-operated doors, which means the guard can do revenue and customer service uninterrupted. Doesn't mean the guard should be dispensed with.

Neil

 

[YorkshireBear]

Only bit of rail news in 9 months that has made me come back to the forum. I had faith that you would have all digested it by now.

Some very interesting alterations being made. I did not expect what has been said about rolling stock at all. But fair play to them they have realised the socio-economic benefits of railways are much greater than they have previously given them credit for.

 

[Philip]

Going off what was posted on the first page, are they implying that booking offices will retain their opening hours as they are? It seems to me they are, though the McNulty Report was quite clear in reducing opening hours and in many cases closing. Am I reading it wrong?

 

[Haydn1971]

There appears to be no requirement to run Sheffield-Leeds services in the timetable - am I missing something ?

 

[northwichcat]

Government never asked Porterbrook to do it and gave every indication they wouldn't be interested, they've also not as yet banned them from other franchises. Porterbrook don't have a leg to stand on for speculating with their own money on the chance the Government would do a U-turn over pacers.

Scotrail has a franchise requirement for properly bogied stock on all lines.

 

[Deerfold]

There appears to be no requirement to run Sheffield-Leeds services in the timetable - am I missing something ?

Yes. It's in the Nottingham to Sheffield table (SHF1A). Specifies that 15 services a day should extend to Leeds.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There appears to be no requirement to run Sheffield-Leeds services in the timetable - am I missing something ?

Its there don't worry. Just some things are not as obvious as others, earlier i thought Batley was to shut turns out TPE are taking services over!