Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[Bletchleyite]

I think there is a really good case for driver-operated doors, or at the very least driver door opening as VT use on Pendolinos and Voyagers, as on stopping local services guards can't do revenue properly because they are forever having to go to the back of the train to open/close the doors.

Driver door release just takes us back to the days of non-locking slamdoors, where the guard had to dispatch the train but didn't have to do a lot on arrival.

The case for removing the guard entirely is rather weaker.

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

ITT section 5.4.2.26 appears at first sight to rule out using D-trains, but note the getout at the end of the clause which says other existing rolling stock is acceptable if one or more of three conditions are met. Condition 3 is for the bidder to have an unconditional offer that the stock in question won't be offered to TPE. Vivarail should be able to offer such an undertaking, given that the TPE ITT appears to rule out use of D78s anyway.

I still remain sceptical of the Vivarail D78 project with its private equity backers being seemingly given a possible acceptance by some on the routes of a certain franchise, who now look to finding get-out-clauses of any shade or hue that will see acceptance of these, in case that particular aspiration also is thwarted.

I look to another "unusual" comparison of a CSRE-inspired project a number of years ago that concerned actual brand new units, which never came to fruition. There were some who doubted the ability of the Chinese to produce rail units that would see acceptance in Britain. I wonder how those in favour of this D78 project would have argued for or against the CSRE project in those days.

 

[Class 170101]

Whilst I agree with the need for the 120 carriages it isn't going to get you very far.

Its either
30*4 carriage trains (DMUs / EMUs)
40*3 carriage trains (DMUs / EMUs)
60*2 carriage trains (DMUs)
or any figure in between.

I can't see it as being likely to be any new DMUs with the EU 3B regulations and also with the market having gone cold on these due to electrification policies being followed.

Therefore if the wiring is delayed as now seems likely then extra DMUs will be needed. These probably will need to be the Class 170s relased from Scotrail with as many Class 319s as possible heading to Northern.

The other big elephant in the room will be the Class 153s which are not yet fully compliant with DDA regulations and I cannot see being modified as they are. Class 155s seem lkely which leaves another hole to be filled.

 

[thealexweb]

The 2019 minimum requirement is 60 services a day Manchester-Bolton-Wigan, so shouldn't be too hard. Means 1/3rd of Wigan-Bolton trains have to go on to the airport.

Do you know how many there are at the moment? And what is required just by December 2017?

 

[158756]

The 2019 minimum requirement is 60 services a day Manchester-Bolton-Wigan, so shouldn't be too hard. Means 1/3rd of Wigan-Bolton trains have to go on to the airport.

Sorry, missed this last night.

Northern TSR, MCR 3B:
Twenty services departing from Manchester Airport to Manchester shall also call at Salford Crescent, Bolton and Preston. Eighteen of these services shall also call at Blackpool.

I'm not sure about the Salford Central-Bolton-Wigan requirement. To me it reads as '60 trains call at Central and Crescent, 60 trains call at Central and Wigan, 60 trains call at Central and Bolton', rather than 60 trains calling at all three of them.
(I.e. some could go via Atherton or continue to Preston/Blackburn.)

And are the Atherton line requirements mistakes, someone confusing 1tph each way for 2 tph? It seems odd that if an increase in service was actually the intended meaning it hasn't appeared in any of the lists of improvements.

Edit: Deleted, I have a dodgy map.

 

[eastwestdivide]

I still remain sceptical of the Vivarail D78 project with its private equity backers being seemingly given a possible acceptance by some on the routes of a certain franchise, who now look to finding get-out-clauses of any shade or hue that will see acceptance of these, in case that particular aspiration also is thwarted.
...

Not sure if any potential Northern operator has "given a possible acceptance" - all I can see for sure is that Vivarail have said "we're building a prototype" and a Vivarail person has quoted potential operators' reaction as "oh, that's interesting, we might have a look when it's done". And all that before the invitation to tender was published.
Surely the whole Vivarail thing is still a speculative venture, which may yet get overtaken by events.
Those events could be tender specifications that rule out such vehicles, or failed technical trials of the prototype, or a prototype that fails to woo potential buyers/operators.

 

[northwichcat]

Whilst I agree with the need for the 120 carriages it isn't going to get you very far.

Its either
30*4 carriage trains (DMUs / EMUs)
40*3 carriage trains (DMUs / EMUs)
60*2 carriage trains (DMUs)
or any figure in between.

I can't see it as being likely to be any new DMUs with the EU 3B regulations and also with the market having gone cold on these due to electrification policies being followed.

The new trains are to run on lines which aren't electrified, so it can't be a conventional EMU, neither can it be an EMU which can only do a short distance on battery power as the ITT forbids that. There's a rumour Bombardier are looking at a DEMU version of their Electrostar to offer to franchise bidders.

 

[Dolge]

I can't see it as being likely to be any new DMUs with the EU 3B regulations and also with the market having gone cold on these due to electrification policies being followed.

The 120 carriages are specified as being for non electrified lines. DMU's, bi-modes or battery powered.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The 120 carriages are specified as being for non electrified lines. DMU's, bi-modes or battery powered.

I wonder if it would be possible for Hitachi to develop a bi-mode version of the AT-200 being built for Scorail? Would make more sense than a straight DMU. Does any other manufacturer gave a design that could be modified, e.g. Bombardier's Aventra or Seimens Desrio City?

 

[Class 170101]

The new trains are to run on lines which aren't electrified, so it can't be a conventional EMU, neither can it be an EMU which can only do a short distance on battery power as the ITT forbids that. There's a rumour Bombardier are looking at a DEMU version of their Electrostar to offer to franchise bidders.

The 120 carriages are specified as being for non electrified lines. DMU's, bi-modes or battery powered.

But can it be existing DMUs such as 170s displaced by Scotrail? Or indeed existing 15x or 17x DMUs pinched from anywhere else?

 

[47802]

But can it be existing DMUs such as 170s displaced by Scotrail? Or indeed existing 15x or 17x DMUs pinched from anywhere else?

No the 120 new carriages must be New, The refurbished fleet could include displaced DMU which are surplus from another TOC.

I suspect that DFT have talked to a number of manufacturer's about what is potentially available, and I suspect the 120 carriages is probably the minimum viable order that the manufacturer's would be interested in.

 

[Boysteve]

Having read the service specification I am a little confused. The second train per hour on the Mid-Cheshire Line that currently runs during peak hours has to terminate at Stockport due to the lack of paths into Manchester. However the service specification for the new franchise says that the current off-peak schedule has to include;
A second hourly mid cheshire service between Manchester and Northwich and also a second Macclesfield stopper and also a new hourly service to New Mills on the Buxton line. How can this be possible? Is it because the TPEx service to Liverpool is to be removed meaning that no services will have to traverse the entire throat at Piccadilly?

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd strongly suggest that the figure of 120 has been determined through discussions with at least 2 manufacturers. I've always said that the lack of DMU product is purely down to a lack of order from a TOC or other means.

I also expect some great savings could be made with deployment of D78's on tight margin services, if the prototypes prove successful.

 

[edwin_m]

Having read the service specification I am a little confused. The second train per hour on the Mid-Cheshire Line that currently runs during peak hours has to terminate at Stockport due to the lack of paths into Manchester. However the service specification for the new franchise says that the current off-peak schedule has to include;
A second hourly mid cheshire service between Manchester and Northwich and also a second Macclesfield stopper and also a new hourly service to New Mills on the Buxton line. How can this be possible? Is it because the TPEx service to Liverpool is to be removed meaning that no services will have to traverse the entire throat at Piccadilly?

I think you have it there - Piccadilly throat decongestion amongst other Northern Hub infrastructure.

 

[WatcherZero]

Having read the service specification I am a little confused. The second train per hour on the Mid-Cheshire Line that currently runs during peak hours has to terminate at Stockport due to the lack of paths into Manchester. However the service specification for the new franchise says that the current off-peak schedule has to include;
A second hourly mid cheshire service between Manchester and Northwich and also a second Macclesfield stopper and also a new hourly service to New Mills on the Buxton line. How can this be possible? Is it because the TPEx service to Liverpool is to be removed meaning that no services will have to traverse the entire throat at Piccadilly?

Mid Cheshire Line Group have been arguing there was a path for an express that terminated in Stockport. Tender seems to partially grant that by requiring two skip stop services. Meanwhile most TPE services will be rerouted via Victoria rather than Piccadilly clearing the throat.

 

[Viscount702]

I think you have it there - Piccadilly throat decongestion amongst other Northern Hub infrastructure.

I thought the problem was also lack of paths to Stockport which Northern hub won't solve.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd strongly suggest that the figure of 120 has been determined through discussions with at least 2 manufacturers. I've always said that the lack of DMU product is purely down to a lack of order from a TOC or other means.

I'm sure Bombardier would supply a single DMU if you wanted and were willing to pay the exorbitant price tag they would put on it.

The issue is more the ROSCOs, who have to be reasonably confident that whatever they pay up front for will cover its costs and make them a profit. A franchisee can only sign up for the term of the franchise, unless the trains are made "franchise assets" that the next franchisee is obliged to take on. I don't see any evidence that DfT intend to require that (if anyone has found any then please shout!) or to buy the trains itself as was being considered for the proposed DMU order in 2009ish.

So if the ROSCO believes the trains will create a DMU surplus in (say) 10 years, the rental is likely to be much higher because after that time either these DMUs or some other DMUs (which they may also own) will go off lease, in their opinion prematurely. So they will seek to recover their costs over a much shorter period.

This is one reason I believe the 120 vehicles will be bi-modes. If electrification has eliminated a lot of diesel working in 10 years time, there will still be a market for these trains either as built or by removing the diesel engines and converting to EMUs. The ITT also allows battery multiple units, but in my view a bit of running with one prototype isn't enough to prove these in service and judging by discussions on here there aren't many services that would offer a suitable balance of electrified and non-electrified route. A split fleet is possible but I think the best value will be had by spreading the design costs of the bi-mode over the full fleet of 120.

On the D78s, Vivarail should expect to have to sign up to a service provision deal with some hefty penalties for non-delivery. The prototype doesn't exist yet, and with a bid deadline in June there won't be much track record of reliable service. In the worst case the TOC will need to find some alternative rolling stock or stump up for severe performance penalties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mid Cheshire Line Group have been arguing there was a path for an express that terminated in Stockport. Tender seems to partially grant that by requiring two skip stop services.

The danger of skip-stop services is that they kill the utility of the service for local journeys, unless the timetables are arranged for easy connections between the two. Time for the Swiss approach the DfT were mooting applying to services in East Anglia?

I remain of the view that a 6th TPH on TPE is complete lunacy - 5 was mad enough. Get all the existing services up to 6x23m/8x20m first, portion-working if desirable, and only when those are full add more trains to an already full infrastructure - or even consider platform extensions etc to allow 9x23m/12x20m.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is one reason I believe the 120 vehicles will be bi-modes. If electrification has eliminated a lot of diesel working in 10 years time, there will still be a market for these trains either as built or by removing the diesel engines and converting to EMUs. The ITT also allows battery multiple units, but in my view a bit of running with one prototype isn't enough to prove these in service and judging by discussions on here there aren't many services that would offer a suitable balance of electrified and non-electrified route. A split fleet is possible but I think the best value will be had by spreading the design costs of the bi-mode over the full fleet of 120.

I agree. Bi-modes will also allow us to stop wasting wires by running DMUs under them, e.g. to Hazel Grove, or on the Barrow services. Northern has many services where this would be useful.

I also think, as I've said before, a smaller diesel engine could be used, allowing 75mph on diesel but 110mph on electricity, and this would work for most Northern routes in this position if not all of them. However, the ban on "last mile diesels" might also rule such things out. That said, provide a traction power bus between vehicles (as an EMU would have anyway) and you could use multiple engines much more flexibly and efficiently in this regard - you might rarely use all of them, and as per TPE software can easily rotate them (or switch them in and out transparently in the event of failure).

Neil

 

[158756]

The danger of skip-stop services is that they kill the utility of the service for local journeys, unless the timetables are arranged for easy connections between the two. Time for the Swiss approach the DfT were mooting applying to services in East Anglia?

I remain of the view that a 6th TPH on TPE is complete lunacy - 5 was mad enough. Get all the existing services up to 6x23m/8x20m first, portion-working if desirable, and only when those are full add more trains to an already full infrastructure - or even consider platform extensions etc to allow 9x23m/12x20m.

Neil

The North TPE plans now appear to involve removing both the Huddersfield-Leeds and Huddersfield-Manchester stoppers. So no section of the line would see more trains than it does today.

By the time you've stopped at Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, Stalybridge and four other stations though I'm not sure if you can really call it an express service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The North TPE plans now appear to involve removing both the Huddersfield-Leeds and Huddersfield-Manchester stoppers. So no section of the line would see more trains than it does today.

By the time you've stopped at Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, Stalybridge and four other stations though I'm not sure if you can really call it an express service.

This is a good point (and relates to my comments about skip-stop). When talking London commuter services with very little local usage the idea of "all stops to a point, then fast to London" works, but where you've got far more multi-centred journeys as the North's very comprehensive network has, I'm not sure it works all that well any more.

Neil

 

[Iskra]

The North TPE plans now appear to involve removing both the Huddersfield-Leeds and Huddersfield-Manchester stoppers. So no section of the line would see more trains than it does today.

By the time you've stopped at Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, Stalybridge and four other stations though I'm not sure if you can really call it an express service.

But those stops will be split between two trains per hour, presumably one focusing on either side of Huddersfield? So it shouldn't be too bad. And you could still change trains for a faster journey as the slow TPE's will get overtaken.

It's the small stations that are gaining here though- Batley, my local station- stands to gain (viable) direct services to Manchester and Hull which is entirely unprecedented and could create a lot of growth in ridership from a town of 50,000.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the small stations that are gaining here though- Batley, my local station- stands to gain (viable) direct services to Manchester and Hull which is entirely unprecedented and could create a lot of growth in ridership from a town of 50,000.

That is I suppose the upside if it is split either side of Huddersfield (so basically retaining the stoppers but extending them to the "opposite" city). Any other split will make certain local journeys difficult or impossible depending on connections, which as I say sort-of works in London but is less likely to work in the North because there are far more genuine local journeys with employment being much more distributed.

Neil

 

[superkev]

On the subject of bi mode how about creating a go anywhere machine by adding a proper diesel engine to the two DTs of a class 313 type emu a number of which are I believe soon to be surplus.
Surely better than fragile Ford pumas under a small wheeled rubber sprung D stock car. Al bodied too.
first post
kev

 

[Iskra]

That is I suppose the upside if it is split either side of Huddersfield (so basically retaining the stoppers but extending them to the "opposite" city). Any other split will make certain local journeys difficult or impossible depending on connections, which as I say sort-of works in London but is less likely to work in the North because there are far more genuine local journeys with employment being much more distributed.

Neil

Like you, I do have my concerns at how this will pan out. Hopefully, they will put a decent amount of thought into it all. I think it will either work very well, or very badly.

 

[edwin_m]

I also think, as I've said before, a smaller diesel engine could be used, allowing 75mph on diesel but 110mph on electricity, and this would work for most Northern routes in this position if not all of them. However, the ban on "last mile diesels" might also rule such things out. That said, provide a traction power bus between vehicles (as an EMU would have anyway) and you could use multiple engines much more flexibly and efficiently in this regard - you might rarely use all of them, and as per TPE software can easily rotate them (or switch them in and out transparently in the event of failure).

Reducing the installed diesel power makes sense - try for 100mph EMU performance in a diesel and you end up with a 185 or something equally overweight. Although I think there will be fewer but larger above-floor engines so the train is effectively a standard EMU below the floor. The scope to turn them on and off may therefore be limited.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reducing the installed diesel power makes sense - try for 100mph EMU performance in a diesel and you end up with a 185 or something equally overweight. Although I think there will be fewer but larger above-floor engines so the train is effectively a standard EMU below the floor. The scope to turn them on and off may therefore be limited.

I'd be surprised if they went above-floor, as that wastes precious train length on engines. I'd expect underfloor, but on every coach except the one with the transformer. EMUs can have plenty of space under the non-transformer cars (the driving trailers of 321s have practically nothing at all under them).

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting letter here where the SoS formally instructs the Permanent Secretary to proceed with the requirement for Pacer replacement and new vehicles, overruling the concerns of the Permanent Secretary over costs. This also assumes new vehicles are diesels with no mention of bi-mode, batteries or bionic duckweed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...thdrawal-confirming-the-ministerial-direction

This is in response to the below where the Perm Sec points out the poor BCR of the Pacer replacement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pacer-vehicles-withdrawal-seeking-a-ministerial-direction
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd be surprised if they went above-floor, as that wastes precious train length on engines. I'd expect underfloor, but on every coach except the one with the transformer. EMUs can have plenty of space under the non-transformer cars (the driving trailers of 321s have practically nothing at all under them).

Maybe, but there is a view that the extra equipment needed to meet emissions regulations makes underfloor diesel engines impossible on new trains within the British loading gauge. The D78 appears to get round this with two smaller engines per motor coach, and I guess it's possible someone else will pick up this idea for new units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe, but there is a view that the extra equipment needed to meet emissions regulations makes underfloor diesel engines impossible on new trains within the British loading gauge. The D78 appears to get round this with two smaller engines per motor coach, and I guess it's possible someone else will pick up this idea for new units.

This gets quoted a lot - but I thought it had been mentioned on here that the actual issue was *large* engines in a UK loading gauge locomotive, not small ones in a DMU. After all, road engines in large lorries and buses/coaches have to fit into quite a small space - having an entire 16m-ish of train underbody to hang them from is comparative luxury.

Neil

 

[Andyh82]

That is I suppose the upside if it is split either side of Huddersfield (so basically retaining the stoppers but extending them to the "opposite" city). Any other split will make certain local journeys difficult or impossible depending on connections, which as I say sort-of works in London but is less likely to work in the North because there are far more genuine local journeys with employment being much more distributed.

Neil

I can't imagine that the slower TPE services would call at all stations one side of Huddersfield and end up being overtaken, that wouldn't be desirable and would be a waste if time as some services would be empty/over crowded depending on what order they arrive at the destination. I'd expect a number of services would call at 1 or 2 stations extra each.

Still don't like the idea though, when travelling Huddersfield to Leeds I find it annoying enough calling at Dewsbury, never mind say Mirfield and Batley as well. I agree that 4 trains per hour with double sets would be better. I'm not sure anyone has ever asked for more trains per hour but everyone will have asked for less overcrowding.

Plus you'd save money as you'd have to pay less drivers!

 

[superkev]

If DOO must happen then let's have the Scottish model. The SE model is a failure particularly in terms of staff presence and revenue collection. Then switch us into those roles. DOO if you really must, but people want a staff presence on all trains. Keep us on them. Technology is not a substitute for a person. CCTV is not a deterrent. It cannot intervene like a person can if needed. Keep us on the trains.

I get the impression that OBMs and RPIs are the future. Revenue earning guards like myself probably have the least to fear. It's non revenue earning guards that are going to have the real problems. It's all about the money.

Is there no mention of DOO in the TPe papers? Just Northern.
kev