Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[7griffinjack]

I have no idea what the details might be. I just meant that the timetable between Piccadilly and Stockport undoubtedly will have to be recast to fit in the three additional Northern off-peak services that the ITT requires to be introduced from December 2017. These have to be pathed without detriment to the timing of other TOCs' services on the line, namely the 3tph West Coast VHF, 2tph Cross Country and 2tph Hope Valley (TPE & EMT). Additionally, the aim will no doubt be to try to achieve reasonably balanced intervals between the 3tph to/from Hazel Grove (one Buxton, one terminator and the new one to New Mills Newtown), also between the 2tph to/from Northwich (one Chester and the new terminator) and between Northern's 2tph to/from Macclesfield (one Stoke and the new terminator.

There's also the 2 Northern EMU services via Stockport to Alderley Edge and Crewe. Also the Arriva trains Wales service

 

[Bletchleyite]

So I imagine 158s with their existing air-con system should fail that requirement due to poor reliability.

Good. Any bidder would do well to talk to Chiltern (particularly if Arriva are bidding!) as they seem to have very successfully fitted a new air-conditioning system to their second-generation units, and it works well.

They should, however, send fGW to proverbial Coventry. (Has the aircon on 166s *ever* worked, at least since CFCs were banned?)

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Possibly the new Bradford to Manchester Airport service

There doesn't appear to be a requirement for a Bradford to Manchester Airport service.

There's a requirement for Manchester Airport services to Barrow/Windermere, Blackpool, Liverpool and Crewe, with any others up to franchise bidders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(particularly if Arriva are bidding!)

Arriva are a shortlisted bidder for Northern. Govia and Abellio are the other shortlisted bidders.

For TPE the shortlisted bidders are First, Stagecoach and Kelios/Go-Ahead (with Kelios having the larger 65% share unlike with Govia.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Arriva are a shortlisted bidder for Northern. Govia and Abellio are the other shortlisted bidders.

If I was up North now I'd be hoping for Govia. They are generally pretty good at the conservative, people-shifting kind of operation that is needed (e.g. LM, Southern, Southeastern).

For TPE the shortlisted bidders are First, Stagecoach and Kelios/Go-Ahead (with Kelios having the larger 65% share unlike with Govia.)

I'd be hoping for Stagey there. Assuming reverse-Govia wouldn't get it if they got Northern, anyway.

Neil

 

[Roose]

Confusing they are being referred to as "Northern Regional" services throughout the document, when the term "Regional" is mostly understood to mean a local stopping service, not a fast one!

Don't see a lot of point in First Class on these services if there is sufficient and good quality Standard, other than possibly Windermere where the tourists could be caned for extra money - that said, with so few direct services that's probably a dead loss.

Neil

Regional seems a decent name for services of 100 miles plus with limited stops beyond a local area (eg Barrow-Airport) contrasting with Local/Metro services.

Incidentally, Windermere now in an odd position with just a couple of through services proposed beyond Lancaster/Preston. I guess branch electrification may still be worthwhile to speed up Windermere services to Lancater/Preston and reduce need for DMU.

As for the new stock, this should surely be targeted at the Northern Regional Expresses and bi-mode seems a no-brainer. Such trains are already in service in France, manufactured by Alstom and Bombardier and will be assembled in the UK by Hitachi.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regional seems a decent name for services of 100 miles plus with limited stops beyond a local area (eg Barrow-Airport) contrasting with Local/Metro services.

Maybe I'm biased in favour of the German/Swiss model, but that would be "regional express", or just "express".

So a "regional" service would be something like the Barrow line stopper (though perhaps not a Manchester area S-Bahn-like service).

Though I'd imagine that as we don't have national train categorisation the franchisee will get to decide what it's called. I'd still expect "Northern Express".

Incidentally, Windermere now in an odd position with just a couple of through services proposed beyond Lancaster/Preston. I guess branch electrification may still be worthwhile to speed up Windermere services to Lancater/Preston and reduce need for DMU.

This surprised me heavily. I had expected hourly Manchester Airport-Windermere (i.e. all services as through services using 319s), or at the bare minimum 2-hourly, with Barrow reverting to an hourly regular interval service from Lancaster only. But the possibility of bi-modes change everything I guess.

As for the new stock, this should surely be targeted at the Northern Regional Expresses and bi-mode seems a no-brainer. Such trains are already in service in France, manufactured by Alstom and Bombardier and will be assembled in the UK by Hitachi.

Agreed.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

This surprised me heavily. I had expected hourly Manchester Airport-Windermere (i.e. all services as through services using 319s), or at the bare minimum 2-hourly, with Barrow reverting to an hourly regular interval service from Lancaster only. But the possibility of bi-modes change everything I guess.

When Manchester Airport-Windermere was split there didn't seem to be a lot of objection - possibly because the split was done in December and most through journeys being done in the Summer.

This wasn't the case when DfT proposed splitting Manchester Airport to Barrow, Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes or Liverpool to Norwich.

 

[lejog]

There doesn't appear to be a requirement for a Bradford to Manchester Airport service.

There's a requirement for Manchester Airport services to Barrow/Windermere, Blackpool, Liverpool and Crewe, with any others up to franchise bidders.

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

Oh yes there is. 2019 Service Requirements Tab MCR 1b

"Fourteen services departing from Bradford Interchange to Manchester shall also call at Hebden Bridge, Deansgate and Manchester Airport."

A Calder Valley - Airport service was always part of the Northern Hub, from the User Requirements stage.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh yes there is. 2019 Service Requirements Tab MCR 1b

"Fourteen services departing from Bradford Interchange to Manchester shall also call at Hebden Bridge, Deansgate and Manchester Airport."

OK I only looked at the December 17 timetable spec, which is when most of the post-Ordsall Chord changes are happening.

A Calder Valley - Airport service was always part of the Northern Hub, from the User Requirements stage.

A number of the requirements from the early 'Manchester Hub' as it was then known haven't been included or have been modified since. For instance, there's no Stockport-Denton-Victoria service while the second hourly service on the Buxton line is only going as far as New Mills Newtown.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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?

and the 'electric' IEPs that have one diesel powerplant per unit rather than EDMU version with a couple of powerpacks under the short unit and 4 or 5 under a full length set ...

 

[Deerfold]

Assuming reverse-Govia wouldn't get it if they got Northern, anyway.

Neil

Why would you assume that?

 

[northwichcat]

Assuming reverse-Govia wouldn't get it if they got Northern, anyway.

Why?

The TPE franchise will compete more with the West Coast, CrossCountry, East Coast and East Midlands franchises more than with the Northern franchise.

 

[Greybeard33]

There's also the 2 Northern EMU services via Stockport to Alderley Edge and Crewe. Also the Arriva trains Wales service

Yes, thanks, how did I forget Wales & Borders' 1tph? I deliberately didn't mention Northern's Crewe and Alderley Edge services because they remain at 1tph each and I was trying to list the other TOCs' services that require paths through Stockport.

No doubt the Crewe and Alderley Edge services will be in the mix with the others as the Northern franchisee tries to juggle paths for its 9tph through Stockport around the 8tph of the other TOCs.

 

[lejog]

OK I only looked at the December 17 timetable spec, which is when most of the post-Ordsall Chord changes are happening.

The reason for the 2019 dates for the Calder Valley line service improvements (extra Manchester train, through Airport service, hopefully upgraded rolling stock) as I understand it, are:

• Network Rail are implementing Northern Hub infrastructure (capacity/line speed) improvements up to 2017 (2018 through Bradford?), partly with the aim of.....
• The line being heavily used for diversions during TPE Electrification. The infrastructure improvements should allow a far better service to run than the 3tph service that ran during the Stalybridge closure a couple of years ago.
• Only then will the 5tph (total) Calder Valley service and hopefully some upgraded trains be introduced.

So its all horribly dependent on TPE Leeds to Manchester electrification.:roll:

Is there a date specified anywhere for this Chester - Calder Valley service? There's no requirement for it that I can see in the Calder Valley specs.

 

[northwichcat]

Is there a date specified anywhere for this Chester - Calder Valley service? There's no requirement for it that I can see in the Calder Valley specs.

Manchester Victoria-Warrington-Chester is required by December 2017. The requirement for it to be joined on to a Calder Vale service is stated in the actual ITT document opposed to a spreadsheet.

1tph Chester-Manchester Victoria-Calder
Valley, timed for Class 158, calling at
Warrington Bank Quay and Newton-leWillows.
This service is to be timed to
provide an approximately regular half-hourly
service when taken together with the Wales
and Borders service between Chester and
Manchester.

In addition to that there's also a requirement for an Ellesmere Port for Manchester (and possibly beyond) service departing between 08:00 and 08:59 and one between 18:30 and 19:29. With one departing Manchester for Ellesmere Port between 17:00 and 17:59

 

[158756]

Manchester Victoria-Warrington-Chester is required by December 2017. The requirement for it to be joined on to a Calder Vale service is stated in the actual ITT document opposed to a spreadsheet.



In addition to that there's also a requirement for an Ellesmere Port for Manchester (and possibly beyond) service departing between 08:00 and 08:59 and one between 18:30 and 19:29. With one departing Manchester for Ellesmere Port between 17:00 and 17:59

Calder Vale-Chester is (effectively) required in spreadsheet MCR 1B, but in the 'from Leeds' section rather than the 'to Manchester' section.

'Fifteen services departing from Leeds to Bradford Interchange shall also call at Warrington Bank Quay.'

 

[tbtc]

• Interesting that the north west is getting a “premium” brand of higher spec provision for some of its routes, whilst there’s no apparent focus on longer distance routes between cities like Leeds – Nottingham or Sheffield – Hull.
  
• If the “Northern” franchise is capable of running longer distance/faster routes like Barrow – Manchester Airport (which doesn’t fit neatly into the new TPE map and will require “premium” trains) then I don’t know why Cleethorpes – Manchester Airport remains on the TPE map? If the whole idea of a “TPE” is because Northern don’t (can’t?) operate longer distance/faster routes – therefore creating a separate franchise to provide that level of service – then retaining two franchises, whilst giving Northern a two tier operation of their own seems confusing.
  
• Giving the Barton on Humber service to EMT is fair enough (operationally separate from Northern’s other routes, there’s a single 153 on a fairly busy Doncaster – Sheffield service arriving in Sheffield around 09:25 to accommodate the need to switch Barton units)...
  
• ...however, nobody has suggested giving the “slow” Sheffield – Worksop service to EMT – this could have been a good route to hand to them to allow through trains from Mansfield to Sheffield (i.e. run it onto the Robin Hood services).
  
• Maybe the “slow” Worksop service will be the one to run through to Meadowhall/ Rotherham (if there’s still a requirement to give the “south Rotherham” stations of Kiveton Park/ Bridge etc a through service) which may mean that the Sheffield - Lincoln trains are upgraded to something more suitable than the current 142s on the Scunthorpe – Lincoln – Adwick “tour. If the service becomes “first stop Worksop” then that’s going to be more suitable for something like a 156.
  
• Thinking about Barrow moving to Northern, that’s going to mean that Cleethorpes will be the only diesel service operated in the Transpennine service (based on rumours/ assumptions/ hints about Scarborough/ Middlesbrough losing their Manchester services), which makes “TPE South” even more of a runt than it currently is.

Alderley Edge-P
iccadilly services are timed for 75mph DMUs. In the event of a 323 shortage in the evening peak a Buxton service is quite often 2 carriages instead of 4 due to a 150 being taken for an Alderley Edge-Piccadilly working

Obviously, given there’s only one class of EMU “west side”, if there are no fit 323s then Northern will have to use a 75mph DMU, but the services aren’t all timed for 75mph DMUs (just looking at those around now – e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y51289/2015/03/03/advanced - there may be some timed for a 75mph DMU at other times of the day, but then the same is surely true of the Stoke line with its scheduled 2x142 service?).

Use of OHEs really needs to be a compromise between effectively using them and meeting demand. It wouldn't be sensible to, for instance, terminate South TPE at Hazel Grove with a connecting EMU for Stockport/Piccadilly and the Airport

Nobody is talking about cutting Sheffield services back to Hazel Grove though – that’s a fairly extreme example to use!

However, increasing the number of DMUs on a route that will be mainly electrified like Barrow – Lancaster – Preston – Bolton – Manchester - Manchester Airport seems a poor use of scarce DMUs (especially if we think that a hundred and twenty carriages will be able to replace roughly the same number of Pacers).

Doubling the frequency of “fast” DMUs from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool seems to undo some of the case for electrifying that line at considerable expense.

I'm not sure if they will terminate in Manchester or whether they'll continue beyond. There isn't a requirement for them to continue beyond Manchester but it might making pathing easier for one or more to continue towards Northwich/New Mills Newtown

I take your point, but given the need to maintain existing services from Liverpool/ Southport/ Blackpool/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh etc to Manchester Airport plus additional Airport journeys (beefing up the Barrow services, any Llandudno service that may or may not happen), maintaining the existing Liverpool – Norwich service *and* the need for an increased frequency from Bolton to Stockport (plus any token VTWC service to Bolton?), I’d be surprised if there were many paths through 13/14(15/16) at Piccadilly for services that don’t meet these criteria.

Leeds - Sheffield, you already have a stopper and InterCity service on the route via Wakefield Westgate, plus a stopper and two fast trains on the Hallam route

Always interesting to read things from your perspective...

First of all, the hourly XC service has been described (by Arriva themselves) as the busiest section on the XC network (this was in their submission for permission to route more “via Doncaster” services via Leeds instead), if that gives anyone from outside the area an idea of how busy the route between the two cities is – even in terms of “horribly packed Voyager”, the service from Sheffield to Leeds is at the busy end of that scale!

Secondly, I note that you describe the half hourly 158 operated service between the cities as “fast”. Fast? A service that takes an hour to cover forty miles? Maybe if you are used to sedate branches it seems speedy, but it shows how neglected the route between Yorkshire’s two biggest cities is if a service with an average speed of 40mph can be described as “fast”!

It seems to me that the corridoor would be better improved by having later/earlier services and stopping more trains at some smaller stops than a massive increase in rolling stock provision

Thirdly, your “solution” to this is to slow services down further so they can stop it at *more* intermediate places? Like Normanton, presumably?

Sadly a route between the large cities of Sheffield and Leeds doesn’t seem to be on the agenda for improvements – despite the resources being found for Barrow, Bentham, Bishop Auckland and Bridlington.

Do we really have to wait until HS2 and HS3 before we get a “fast” service between the cities in northern England? Is the conventional network really not capable, too clogged up with stoppers?

it provides, in the event of a tough financial settlement for DfT, the necessary grounds to get out of the commitment even if that means scrapping the ITT and starting again...

Interesting comments.

The idea that this £250m to replace Pacers is a pre-election sweetener (and that we’ll find out after the election that there’s no money so we’ll have to go back to the drawing board) is one that I’m increasingly wondering about!

I don’t believe that the pendulum has swung from McNulty’s rationalisations to being able to afford this largesse all of a sudden! Expect it to swing back after the election is out of the way? After all, the economy is barely off life support, the public finances are in a terrible state, there are going to be some savage cuts during the next parliament.

As I pointed out in post #115, the Consultation Response document states that:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407939/northern-and-tpe-stakeholder-briefing-document-and-consultation-response.pdf

This implies that it is simply the diversion of the Liverpool to Scarborough service to run via Victoria that frees up Piccadilly capacity for the three new Stockport services, not the Ordsall Chord as such

Interesting, cheers.

I saw someone claim that the changes to the Scarborough – Liverpool service would be enough for the extra three trains an hour into Piccadilly, but I found that hard to believe (one service an hour clogging up so many paths for other routes, there being sufficient spare paths over the Stockport viaduct for an extra three services an hour that can’t run due to a conflict at Piccadilly), so made the assumption that the lack of reversals on the Guide Bridge- Airport corridor must also be responsible for the big jump in capacity.

If it is the case that amending one service an hour (from Guide Bridge to Oxford Road) can free up these three extra Cheshire trains then I’m amazed it’s not been done years ago. You could have run the “semi fast” Calder Valley service through to Merseyside if the need for Liverpool to have a through train to Leeds was that important (extend the Buxton DMU through to Liverpool to replace the TPE service via Warrington Central).

The consultation response talks about Northern Express services being of higher quality than current stock (either new or refurbished).
The services earmarked for Express branding appear to start with Barrow-Manchester Airport (diesel) and Blackpool-Manchester Airport (electric).
That seems to mean new stock for Barrow (replacing sub-leased 185s), and an upgrade of 319s for Blackpool (at least the Airport services).
I don't see 1st class mentioned but I would suppose the new Northern would want to introduce 1st class on these services.
Anyway, there seems to be a basis for 2 types of 319 configuration - commuter and express.

But other "Express" services are not identified.
You might have thought Newcastle-Carlisle might be one, or Leeds-Carlisle, or the new Chester-Victoria-Leeds.

Liverpool-Man Airport confuses me. There appear to be 2 services, one via Newton le Willows and one via Warrington Central.
Doesn't seem right.

The electrification agenda is badly thought through.
How do you get to the 90% electric on the Chat Moss route when at least 3 services are diesel (2xTPE, 1xATW and 1xNorthern Chester-Leeds).
Barrow, Blackburn and Southport services will all be diesel on the Bolton route.

What do TPE do about new stock?
At first sight they are not obliged to acquire any more stock, but if they do so before TP North is wired they will have to get rid of it soon after.
Is that a prompt to buy IEPs (which could be used on Scottish services too)?
What is the point of the Class 442 references?
I shouldn't think a Class 68 plus 5-car 442 would perform like the 185 fleet.

There is nothing in the ITT set which says "all 319s to Northern, TP buys new electrics".
There are too many 319s, and TP does not need new electrics for possibly 5-6 years - far too long to get a meaningful quote from manufacturers.

Or have I missed something?

I think that’s a fair reading of the situation, based on the only seeing part of the picture (which is all we currently know). On some lines we may see more DMUs *after electrification* than there were before electrification...

On one hand, we’ll be swimming in 185s once gaps in the TPE line from Liverpool to Newcastle are finished, and 185s ought to be good enough for routes like Barrow – Manchester Airport, yet the new Northern franchise needs to get brand new “higher spec” DMUs for such routes in the short term (and will presumably get their hands on most of the 185s fleet in the longer term).

 

[Andyh82]

I doubt there is anything stopping the new operator using the 'Express' brand for other appropriate services in the east, just that it isn't a requirement. They've only explicitly specified it to ensure TPE services aren't replaced by class 150s.

Whatever the spec of these express trains are, I'm sure many other units, such as 158s will be close to that spec, particularly after refurbishment, to not be an issue if they come under that brand in the east.

 

[edwin_m]

Regional seems a decent name for services of 100 miles plus with limited stops beyond a local area (eg Barrow-Airport) contrasting with Local/Metro services.

No need for anyone to get hung up on the name. There is a footnote in the ITT making clear that it's just a convenient name to refer to them within the franchising process, not a requirement or even a suggestion that it should become a brand name.

 

[northwichcat]

[*]Interesting that the north west is getting a “premium” brand of higher spec provision for some of its routes, whilst there’s no apparent focus on longer distance routes between cities like Leeds – Nottingham or Sheffield – Hull.

I don't think at this stage you can say those services won't be premium brand. The focus in the ITT on premium routes are the routes transferring from TPE to Northern plus the new Chester-Leeds via Bradford service. However, the scope of the ITT does allow bidders to propose other routes getting the premium brand.

If the “Northern” franchise is capable of running longer distance/faster routes like Barrow – Manchester Airport (which doesn’t fit neatly into the new TPE map and will require “premium” trains) then I don’t know why Cleethorpes – Manchester Airport remains on the TPE map? If the whole idea of a “TPE” is because Northern don’t (can’t?) operate longer distance/faster routes – therefore creating a separate franchise to provide that level of service – then retaining two franchises, whilst giving Northern a two tier operation of their own seems confusing.

South TPE doesn't seem to fit in well with the other TPE routes. Maybe that was why DfT proposed diverting South TPE to Hull after Doncaster but a lot of people objected to that.

Thinking about Barrow moving to Northern, that’s going to mean that Cleethorpes will be the only diesel service operated in the Transpennine service (based on rumours/ assumptions/ hints about Scarborough/ Middlesbrough losing their Manchester services), which makes “TPE South” even more of a runt than it currently is.

Depending what rolling stock TPE get that might be a good thing. It will allow diesel overnight/Sunday services to run via the likes of Wakefield, Brighouse and Warrington Central without meaning TPE have to keep a couple of diesel diagrams on North TPE.

then the same is surely true of the Stoke line with its scheduled 2x142 service?).

No DMUs go to Stoke. Either you're thinking of this service:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y51195/2015/03/02/advanced (2 car DMU)
or this one:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y54597/2015/03/02/advanced (4 car Pacer and terrible for keeping time between Stockport and Piccadilly - so I'm sure Northern would love to switch it to an EMU.)

Nobody is talking about cutting Sheffield services back to Hazel Grove though – that’s a fairly extreme example to use!

Exactly because everyone realises that cutting a direct service between Manchester and Sheffield would be stupid. However, some people seem to like suggesting cutting other services when they know very little about the service and the passenger flows, so some of the suggestions can almost be as stupid.

Doubling the frequency of “fast” DMUs from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool seems to undo some of the case for electrifying that line at considerable expense.

The main reason for moving TPE to Chat Moss is ahead of the proposed half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle electric service. The North TPE wires won't be ready at the same time as the Ordsall Chord and it doesn't make sense to either not make proper use of the Ordsall Chord or to completely rewrite the North TPE timetable every couple of years, with direct links being created and lost each time.

 

[yorksrob]

Always interesting to read things from your perspective...

First of all, the hourly XC service has been described (by Arriva themselves) as the busiest section on the XC network (this was in their submission for permission to route more “via Doncaster” services via Leeds instead), if that gives anyone from outside the area an idea of how busy the route between the two cities is – even in terms of “horribly packed Voyager”, the service from Sheffield to Leeds is at the busy end of that scale!

This is perfectly true. We all know that there is a problem with InterCity XC capacity which needs to be sorted out in the context of the whole franchise. It's never going to be addressed in terms of just the Sheffield - Leeds section so it's never going to have much relevance to the Northern/TP franchise. Even if they were the same TOC/Franchise/Business Sector, it's not as though you're going to be able to transfer a 142 to strengthen the Aberdeen - Penzance !

Secondly, I note that you describe the half hourly 158 operated service between the cities as “fast”. Fast? A service that takes an hour to cover forty miles? Maybe if you are used to sedate branches it seems speedy, but it shows how neglected the route between Yorkshire’s two biggest cities is if a service with an average speed of 40mph can be described as “fast”!

Well then, what's your solution to speeding up the "fast" trains then. The service is almost always a 158, which already has a much higher top speed than 40mph, so the relatively low speeds must be down to infrastructure, and I can't see anyone spending millions on infrastructure to do this, particularly if we're about to splurge on HS2 between the two.

Alternatively, you could miss out the stops at Wakefield/Barnsley etc, but I doubt that the proportion of the people on these services travelling point to point Sheffield - Leeds is enough to justify not stopping them at the intermediate ones - particularly (from my experience) Meadowhall.

It seems to me that the only real improvement you could make to these lines by sacrificing rural services would be to shuffle rolling stock to them. However, I use these lines a lot (for work, rest and play) and whilst they are crowded in the peaks (like many), and on a Saturday and Friday night, they are busy but not overstretched most of the rest of the time. The "fast" trains seem to be less busy than the stoppers a lot of the time.

The best thing they could do in terms of rolling stock, would be to replace the 2 carriage pacer diagram on weekday Hallam services with either a three carriage one or a sprinter (as the other diagrams are) but even as someone who uses the route every day, it isn't a deal breaker and certainly not an excuse for having a not fit for purpose service elsewhere (on lines such as Skipton - Lancaster for example).

Thirdly, your “solution” to this is to slow services down further so they can stop it at *more* intermediate places? Like Normanton, presumably?

You can lol all you like, however, as a regular rail user in the area, a frequent service where and when I need it (particularly later in the evening) is far more important to me than turning Sheffield - Leeds into a racetrack.

The geography between Sheffield and Leeds isn't like the ECML and full of fields. It contains a lot of large and small settlements which need to be served. Perhaps if they ever get their act together on XC rolling stock, they can speed that one up for the more impatient travellers.

Sadly a route between the large cities of Sheffield and Leeds doesn’t seem to be on the agenda for improvements – despite the resources being found for Barrow, Bentham, Bishop Auckland and Bridlington.

Do we really have to wait until HS2 and HS3 before we get a “fast” service between the cities in northern England? Is the conventional network really not capable, too clogged up with stoppers?

Now who's being parochial !

Unless signalling and other infrastructure improvements can be built into routine upgrades, then the answer is probably no. The eventual arrival of HS2 makes this less likely even then.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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

or that the second member of staff is solely a ticket seller ...

on some routes i nthe northern area there is widespread fares avoidance because of short inter station journey times ( try getting through a loaded train between Kirkgate and Cas Vegas including getting to the correct set of doors to do the doors at Normantion )

 

[lejog]

Calder Vale-Chester is (effectively) required in spreadsheet MCR 1B, but in the 'from Leeds' section rather than the 'to Manchester' section.

'Fifteen services departing from Leeds to Bradford Interchange shall also call at Warrington Bank Quay.'

Ah yes, good spot. I was searching for Chester Interesting that the appendix doesnt specify a route past Warrington, although I suppose the text rules out anywhere other than Chester.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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!

to which the the Union party line will be

" we are safety critical staff there to ensure the safe passage of the train, we don't Have to do revenue "

and passenger comfort / dealing with ASB is not part of that 'safety critical' function only operating the door switches and being there for the vanishingly small occurences of having to de train or the driver being taken / ill hitting someone / something with the train ...

 

[Stats]

To be going on with it'll be 2 per hour from Newcastle to Liverpool via Victoria,

Which existing service do you suggest axing? From what I've read there's no capacity to run a 2nd TPE service between Northallerton and Newcastle even with the proposed freight loops.

 

[Greybeard33]

However, increasing the number of DMUs on a route that will be mainly electrified like Barrow – Lancaster – Preston – Bolton – Manchester - Manchester Airport seems a poor use of scarce DMUs (especially if we think that a hundred and twenty carriages will be able to replace roughly the same number of Pacers).

If some or all of the 120 new carriages form bi-mode EDMUs and are used on Barrow to Manchester Airport, they will make good use of the wires. But you are correct that splitting services, to minimise DMU (or EDMU) running under the wires, would enable more of the Pacers to be (indirectly) replaced by 319s rather than scarce DMUs.

Interesting, cheers.

I saw someone claim that the changes to the Scarborough – Liverpool service would be enough for the extra three trains an hour into Piccadilly, but I found that hard to believe (one service an hour clogging up so many paths for other routes, there being sufficient spare paths over the Stockport viaduct for an extra three services an hour that can’t run due to a conflict at Piccadilly), so made the assumption that the lack of reversals on the Guide Bridge- Airport corridor must also be responsible for the big jump in capacity.

The TPE North services from the Airport to York and Middlesburgh currently reverse in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly (unlike the TPE South to Cleethorpes) and so have to cross the Fast lines between Slade Lane Junction and Piccadilly. This is a constraint on capacity, just not as bad as the Liverpool to Scarborough crossing the entire layout between Platform 13/14 and Ardwick Junction. So when these TPE North Airport services are able to use the Ordsall Chord and Platforms 13-16, it will improve line capacity as well as reducing occupancy demands on the low numbered platforms.

 

[SprinterMan]

This thread is a brilliant source of info, thanks very much everyone Do we know what is happening with Scarborough yet?

Adam

 

[Bletchleyite]

to which the the Union party line will be

" we are safety critical staff there to ensure the safe passage of the train, we don't Have to do revenue "

Which will always be the debate. But DOO services around London do not have a poor safety record[1], and of course a revenue guard, if properly trained, is there to help in an emergency.

I do understand the case for keeping the second member of staff on the train, but to me that case is not a safety one except in emergency.

[1] With on-train cameras meaning the driver can watch the train out of the platform, it is arguably far *safer* than a guard who is in the passenger accommodation and has no window to lean out of, as he could stop if someone fell against the train, for instance.

Neil

 

[LowLevel]

As has been mentioned plenty of times before, just to ensure accuracy - the driver of a DOO train cannot watch a train out as the cameras turn off to make sure they concentrate on the line ahead.

As I've pointed out many times before and never received a satisfactory answer, it is negligence for a guard to leave their door panel and not observe departure before they are clear of the platform, and the same applies to platform staff. For some reason just because the driver is dispatching it's not important on DOO trains so something that could cost a guard their job is not required of a driver carrying out the same role.

And the detrainments on DOO services with the train moving with the doors open on FCC, along with other things like the quietened down role of coincidental on board staff on the DOO train at Ladbroke Grove with an atomised, very dead driver are hardly ringing endorsements.

Do it properly like Overground with lots of staff everywhere and close together manned stations or don't do it at all.

 

[Starmill]

As has been mentioned plenty of times before, just to ensure accuracy - the driver of a DOO train cannot watch a train out as the cameras turn off to make sure they concentrate on the line ahead.

As I've pointed out many times before and never received a satisfactory answer, it is negligence for a guard to leave their door panel and not observe departure before they are clear of the platform, and the same applies to platform staff. For some reason just because the driver is dispatching it's not important on DOO trains so something that could cost a guard their job is not required of a driver carrying out the same role.

Which always confuses me, given the number who return to selling a ticket / the cab before the train has cleared the platform. Not that you can see outside the train anyway with most rolling stock, nor would you have much power to intervene if someone did fall down the side of the train if you actually could see them.