Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[marcouk2]

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

Minimum of nineteen a day through Moorthorpe and 46 through Barnsley as well required.

 

[Deerfold]

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...

They've had more and more problems in the peaks at least managing 5 tph.

My sister has commuted between Huddersfield and Garforth by train for several years and last month went back to her car. In theory the train should always be quicker, but she's had too many days where she's over an hour late home. She identifies her problems as starting when the additional service was added to the timetable.

 

[yorksrob]

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?

Last service to Woodlesford and castleford no earlier than 23:00.

Yet last servict to Normanton 22:30.

Why does Normanton have to continually have an inadequate and sub-standard service

I can feel a letter to the MP coming on.

Very dissappointing indeed.

 

[tbtc]

A bit of a mixed bag. Good, but not the Great Leap Forward I’d hoped for.

• It looks very “west” dominated to me, with most of the “east” improvements/developments/focus being in fairly rural areas (Bridlington, Whitby, Bishop Auckland, S&C, Selby, Lincoln, Cleethorpes).
  
• Does this say more about the kind of letter writers and “stakeholders” who’ve made a noise about things (e.g. thousands of Grimsby Telegraph readers) than trying to deal with actual demands and ease overcrowding?
  
• For example, 40% more services from Skipton to Lancaster will please the enthusiast fraternity who want a scenic day out, but there’s nothing for those using the train five days a week on busy lines like Sheffield – Leeds (Increasing the frequency of the Moorthorpe stopper on Sundays is welcome, but pretty inconsequential for commuters).
  
• TPE goes back via Bolton? Interesting. Never had strong opinions either way about that one, but appreciate that some get quite excited about the “traditional” route.
  
• The improvements from Hull to York are good – this has always felt like a potential gem in need of polishing – the proposed clockface service sounds great. I've wondered in the past if it'd be mainly cut back to Selby - York (to free up more paths for TPE services to Hull) - doesn't look like that's happening though.
  
• The “introduce a short distance service to soak up the local stops so that the existing longer distance service can be sped up” approach is a good principle if paths are there (Sheffield – Worksop, Manchester – Northwich, Manchester – New Mills).
  
• Same goes for the improvements to longer distance non-TPE services like Newcastle – Carlisle, Manchester - Blackburn.
  
• However, a number of these improvements seem to have been dreamt up without consideration of electrification. More DMUs from Leeds to Liverpool over the electrified Chat Moss line (with a DMU replacement from Manchester Airport to Liverpool via Warrington) ignores that we’ve just spent a lot of money electrifying Chat Moss – and that to use more scarce diesels on that route seems a waste of resources.
  
• Same goes for introducing more Barrow – Manchester Airport DMUs (at a time when we’ll have wires from Lancaster to Manchester Airport). And extending the Hazel Grove terminators to New Mills Newtown (which looks like what’ll happen?), there’s even less chance of EMUs on the already electrified line to Hazel Grove. Are we serious about replacing the worst DMUs or not?
  
• If TPE give up Windermere, Barrow etc to Northern then that’ll leave the hourly Scottish service even more out on a limb than it currently is – yet the Scottish services are referred to as “TPE”.
  
• The “creating more jobs and security for hardworking people” stuff is the kind of political language that I’d rather the railways had nothing to do with. Unavoidable in the modern day though, I suppose.
  
• 120 carriages sounds good (though we don’t know how “self powered” they’ll be), but will be a drop in the ocean compared to Pacer replacement – will still need lots of electrification and cascading if you want to be rid of Pacers by 1 January 2015.
  
• If the second member of staff on board services is like the ones in Strathclyde or SWT then I’m okay with that – I know many won’t be but if we keep two employees on board then I don’t mind which one operates the doors – if the technology allows the driver to do that (and gives the Guard more time to focus on passengers) then fair enough. Not trying to provoke anyone here, just giving my opinion as a passenger.
  
• Good news is that it's meant YorkshireBear has been seen in these parts again

 

[crehld]

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.

I am astonished the Northern feels they have to have a formal policy for this - it should be part and parcel of the guard's role!

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).

Quite, and the fact the second type exists undermines the whole safety argument in my opinion (how can the safety of the whole train be ensured if guards confine themselves to a very small proportion of it?). I would also suggest it is at the root of a lot of lost revenue. The unions would gain a lot of traction among passengers if they brought attention to such actions as poor job performance and bad practice.

I am not trying to tarnish all Northern guards with the same brush, but there seems to be a sizeable minority who just sit in the back and don't come out except to open the doors. As someone who regularly uses Northern services from rural locations, 40-50% of the time you have to get out of your seat knock on the back cab door to get the guard to grudgingly sell you a ticket. It's rather frustrating as a passenger to see someone sitting in the back with a newspaper and a thermos who should be focused on the job. Under no circumstances does this make me feel safe on the train as it gives the perception the guards in question can't be bothered.

Moving guards into a more explicitly customer-facing role can only reassure the passengers that their safety is being looked out for by a dedicated member of staff, and if they make a more concerted effort to collect the revenue they will be providing the best possible justification in favour of retaining their posts.

 

[northwichcat]

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!

TPE bidders have been asked to allocate paths for Northern services on the North TPE route as well as their own.

Also noticed they have asked Northern bidders to leave a path for ATW to operate North Wales to Manchester services through to the Airport. Alternatively if that is not possible they must allow a path for a service from North Wales to terminate at Victoria.

 

[Bletchleyite]

[*]If TPE give up Windermere, Barrow etc to Northern then that’ll leave the hourly Scottish service even more out on a limb than it currently is – yet the Scottish services are referred to as “TPE”.

These IMO make no sense at all and need to go to West Coast.

Neil

 

[crehld]

• Leeds-Settle-Carlisle: We have specified a new Northern service out of Leeds in the afternoon peak, specifically between 1700 and 1759, by December 2019. We are also specifying an additional evening journey from Carlisle back to Leeds by December 2019.

• Skipton-Lancaster: There are currently five Northern trains per day in each direction between Skipton and Lancaster. We have specified two extra trains per day in each direction by December 2019, making a total of
seven trains in each direction.

On a more positive note, this is good news to those of us who depend on these services. Skipton to Lancaster has been in need of extra services for some time now. Shame we'll have to wait for another four years!

 

[YorkshireBear]

TPE bidders have been asked to allocate paths for Northern services on the North TPE route as well as their own.

Also noticed they have asked Northern bidders to leave a path for ATW to operate North Wales to Manchester services through to the Airport. Alternatively if that is not possible they must allow a path for a service from North Wales to terminate at Victoria.

(Hudds to Leeds) From what i have seen they have been asked to make room for the Northern Man Vic - Leeds via Dewsbury service which has no service call at Batley. All the all the documents say that Northern are to stop calling at Batley with no trains to call. But TPE have mandated half hourly stops at Batley.

 

[railnut]

The Northern Invitation to Tender begs the question who is going to bid for a franchise of 9 years when part of this Invitation to Tender requires a minimum of 120 new carriages to be procured by 1 January 2020. The average life span of a DMU,DEMU or LHCS is thirty years. Therefore under the Northern Invitation to Tender any potential bidder will be handing over rolling stock at the end of the franchise to a future TOC with a remaining lifespan of 20 years plus. I honestly cannot see any Tenders for the Northern franchise being forthcoming.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A bit of a mixed bag. Good, but not the Great Leap Forward I’d hoped for.

• For example, 40% more services from Skipton to Lancaster will please the enthusiast fraternity who want a scenic day out, but there’s nothing for those using the train five days a week on busy lines like Sheffield – Leeds (Increasing the frequency of the Moorthorpe stopper on Sundays is welcome, but pretty inconsequential for commuters).
  
• TPE goes back via Bolton? Interesting. Never had strong opinions either way about that one, but appreciate that some get quite excited about the “traditional” route.
  
  
• Same goes for introducing more Barrow – Manchester Airport DMUs (at a time when we’ll have wires from Lancaster to Manchester Airport). And extending the Hazel Grove terminators to New Mills Newtown (which looks like what’ll happen?), there’s even less chance of EMUs on the already electrified line to Hazel Grove. Are we serious about replacing the worst DMUs or not?
  
  
• If the second member of staff on board services is like the ones in Strathclyde or SWT then I’m okay with that – I know many won’t be but if we keep two employees on board then I don’t mind which one operates the doors – if the technology allows the driver to do that (and gives the Guard more time to focus on passengers) then fair enough. Not trying to provoke anyone here, just giving my opinion as a passenger.
  
• Good news is that it's meant YorkshireBear has been seen in these parts again

Yes but providing more services from Hellifield and intermediate stops to Leeds is seen as important in what is a growing commuter market out there.

I was surprised by the return to Bolton as i thought they took it via Wigan to get commuters off a long distance service.

The stopper to Hazel Grove comes from Preston i hope this won't be extended to New Mills but i can't see any capacity for it not to be... which like you say removes the opportunity for that to be an EMU.

Completely agree regarding second member of staff. Very good move DOO if second member is kept on board.

Yes i am back, you best all work hard to keep me though. :P

 

[WatcherZero]

Perhaps not quite out on a limb as its saying Scotland-Blackpool or Liverpool service likely to be introduced by TPE in the future, that would compensate if it called at Wigan that would mitigate existing service going back to via Bolton when combined with the fast Wigan-Manchester service Northern are required to introduce to replace it. Northern are asked to introduce extra Manchester-Blackburn via Bolton and Stockport-Bolton corridor service as well so that route should be drowning in capacity.

Nothing in about weekday Kirkby/Southport services beyond extra Wigan-Liverpool, though reading the separate electrification prioritisation stuff last night Southport line is the highest passenger usage diesel service in Greater Manchester and theres a lot of diesel service km compared to distance requiring wires so I have hopes for it, potential sticking point seems to be expense of Wallgate Bridge gauging.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was surprised by the return to Bolton as i thought they took it via Wigan to get commuters off a long distance service.

No, it was taken via Wigan because that's where the first electrification phase went.

Neil

 

[misterredmist]

I look forward to the days when we no longer have 3rd world rolling stock...... I don't like the idea of re-cycling ex TFL ex Distric Line trains either....OMG !

 

[YorkshireBear]

No, it was taken via Wigan because that's where the first electrification phase went.

Neil

Sorry i knew that, i thought the reason i gave was why it was going to stay there.

 

[northwichcat]

[*]Same goes for introducing more Barrow – Manchester Airport DMUs (at a time when we’ll have wires from Lancaster to Manchester Airport). And extending the Hazel Grove terminators to New Mills Newtown (which looks like what’ll happen?), there’s even less chance of EMUs on the already electrified line to Hazel Grove. Are we serious about replacing the worst DMUs or not?

Spec states 18 Manchester departures from Hazel Grove between 10:00 and 15:59, 12 from New Mills Central and 6 from Buxton, so there will still be trains terminating at Hazel Grove.

Ideally long-term electrify Hazel Grove to Sheffield and then extend the Hazel Grove terminator to Sheffield.

With regards to DMUs on Chat Moss: Chester-Warrington-Manchester does ideally need 2tph and until they electrify Chester-Warrington there's not really any other option. These will run Newton-le-Willows to Manchester non-stop so will clear the electrified section as quickly as possible.

[*]120 carriages sounds good (though we don’t know how “self powered” they’ll be), but will be a drop in the ocean compared to Pacer replacement – will still need lots of electrification and cascading if you want to be rid of Pacers by 1 January 2015.

It also states about options for taking on 15xs and 17xs released by other operators i.e. Northern could take on DMUs released by Scotrail as well as those 120 new carriages - which could be 60 x 2 car trains, 40 x 3 car trains or 30 x 4 trains - or a mixture!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I look forward to the days when we no longer have 3rd world rolling stock

Pacers aside, our current rolling stock is neither better nor worse than is common in Europe. Indeed, in many areas it is *much* newer.

Provided they aren't rotting to bits, there's nothing much wrong with a 156 as a regional express unit, for instance. No different in standard to the refurbished 1970s fresh-air coaches you'd get on a similar service in Italy, say.

Neil

 

[crehld]

A bit of a mixed bag. Good, but not the Great Leap Forward I’d hoped for.

• Does this say more about the kind of letter writers and “stakeholders” who’ve made a noise about things (e.g. thousands of Grimsby Telegraph readers) than trying to deal with actual demands and ease overcrowding?
  
• For example, 40% more services from Skipton to Lancaster will please the enthusiast fraternity who want a scenic day out, but there’s nothing for those using the train five days a week on busy lines like Sheffield – Leeds (Increasing the frequency of the Moorthorpe stopper on Sundays is welcome, but pretty inconsequential for commuters).
  

Extra services from Skipton and Lancaster are necessary and has nothing to do with what enthusiasts want. Its meeting demand based on increasing passenger numbers, both on through journeys and at the intermediate stations.

 

[WatcherZero]

No, it was taken via Wigan because that's where the first electrification phase went.

Neil

First Transpennine said they didn't want to put it back via Bolton though and that the amount of short distance passengers using it was subtracting from seating available for long distance users. That's why it didn't call at North Western in the high peak, to stop people using it to get home from Manchester after work.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Lots to be positive about, but a few caveats...

The increase to 6tph on North TPE was always known to lead to the withdrawal of the HUD-MCV stopper and replacement with calls on the Hull/Selby TPE services. Am I right in my interpretation that this will also be the case East of Huddersfield?

Hourly services on the Penistone line on Sundays has to be welcomed, but no mention of Huddersfield to Leeds getting an increase, though this might be down to the changes mentioned above.

Is there likely to be a future for the Northern Leeds-Dewsbury-MCV service? If Batley is going to TPE there'll be less need for me to change at Dewsbury, so the West Riding pub will miss out!

 

[northwichcat]

Just noticed options for TPE bidders to run a Liverpool or/and Blackpool to Scotland service are included.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.....There is also a section on revenue protection where bidders are required to crack down on it and recover £38m lost revenue.....

Sorry, still don't see the requirement to staff stations, I'll have a look in the other section you mention for ticket barriers later on.

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?

Well, Northern are about to p*ss about with staffing levels at 19 stations, so I won't be holding my breath......

....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.

I am astonished the Northern feels they have to have a formal policy for this - it should be part and parcel of the guard's role!...

I'm astonished the Unions would allow it. Guards having to be in the main train with all their equipment and money? Asking for trouble me thinks.....

The Northern Invitation to Tender begs the question who is going to bid for a franchise of 9 years when part of this Invitation to Tender requires a minimum of 120 new carriages to be procured by 1 January 2020. The average life span of a DMU,DEMU or LHCS is thirty years. Therefore under the Northern Invitation to Tender any potential bidder will be handing over rolling stock at the end of the franchise to a future TOC with a remaining lifespan of 20 years plus. I honestly cannot see any Tenders for the Northern franchise being forthcoming.

The franchisee doesn't buy the stock and the franchise won't own it either. It will be bought be a ROSCO and leased to the TOC for a hugely inflated price.

 

[crehld]

I'm astonished the Unions would allow it. Guards having to be in the main train with all their equipment and money? Asking for trouble me thinks.....

I'm confused - how else are guards expected to perform their roles? Are the unions trying to suggest the safest and most effective place for a guard is sat in the back cab doing nothing?!

 

[Senex]

These IMO make no sense at all and need to go to West Coast.

Neil

Absolutely! Get it all into the hands of one operator and then make sure that London, Birmingham, Manchester, and later (one hopes) Liverpool too all get a sensible mix of fast and semi-fast services to Glasgow and Edinburgh rather than the present poor and slow provision for the north-west. It's good at least to see that the Invitation to Tender does envisage putting Manchester trains back on the shorter and faster route via Bolton.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm confused - how else are guards expected to perform their roles? Are the unions trying to suggest the safest and most effective place for a guard is sat in the back cab doing nothing?!

Maybe they want to be behind glass in the rear cab and then if you want a ticket you have to go to them?

 

[CdBrux]

Spec states 18 Manchester departures from Hazel Grove between 10:00 and 15:59, 12 from New Mills Central and 6 from Buxton, so there will still be trains terminating at Hazel Grove.

I'm not sure, 12+6 = 18 departures from HG, they just don't start there! In a 6 hour period this is already one every 20 mins.

 

[LowLevel]

I suspect you will find the guard is still required to store their belongings in the rear cab as well being able to pop in for a drink or to make a phone call - they just won't be able to live in there. I fully support guards working in the train - it's the way I work myself. I don't accept the stripping of safety critical status from them though.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Patrick McLoughlin in Manchester today:-

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/transport-minister-promises-replace-30-year-old-8734676?

One firm is looking to solve the problem by refurbishing old London Underground trains.But Mr McLoughlin told the M.E.N this would not be necessary.

As far as the Manchester area is concerned, the proposed timetables are all exceptionally good news - I'm struggling to find the catch! 1/2 hourly for Macclesfield, Mid Cheshire and Blackburn, restoration of the 'Scotch' TPE services via Bolton and substitute service to Wigan NW, 3 per hour on the Calder Valley, extension of Hazel Grove stoppers to New Mills. The only slight downside is further splitting the fast Leeds trains between Victoria and Piccadilly, but the Orsdall Chord will solve that eventually.

 

[Senex]

What is the reason for requiring a "parliamentary" service of at least one train in one direction a week from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge via Phillips Park Jn and Guide Bridge?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm confused - how else are guards expected to perform their roles? Are the unions trying to suggest the safest and most effective place for a guard is sat in the back cab doing nothing?!

What are you dribbling on about? I have no idea what unions have said on the matter. I expressed my surprise at the unions seemingly not opposing a ban.

Guards 'hiding' in the back cab is the extreme opposite to banning them from it. Even the most customer friendly Guards use the rear cab.

I suspect you will find the guard is still required to store their belongings in the rear cab as well being able to pop in for a drink or to make a phone call - they just won't be able to live in there. I fully support guards working in the train - it's the way I work myself. I don't accept the stripping of safety critical status from them though.

If they are not actually banned from it then it doesn't sound like much of a policy.