Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[edwin_m]

Surely once Blackpool North is wired Class 319s could stable there?

That's certainly a sensible suggestion, assuming the sidings are to be wired.

 

[northwichcat]

I understand that that would save money but if the demand for a night service from Bolton existed only two years ago why would it not exist now?

But was it well used or did it stop there most days without anyone boarding or alighting?

Preston-Bolton-Manchester is the route of the next Transpennine's Scottish services from December 2017 I believe. Preston-Wigan-Manchester may only be used for diversionary purposes.

They aren't allowed to carry Manchester-Bolton passengers though. They can either run the service through Bolton without stopping or stop to pick up only on northbound services and drop off only on southbound services.

Now that I have had the chance to think about this a bit more it would be sheer madness not to include Chorley as a station stop on the Barrow-in-Furness and Windermere services. If another route is chosen, e.g. Bolton and Wigan North Western, where will this leave Chorley? It will leave Chorley with no guaranteed access to long distance services.

I don't think there was any requirement for Chorley to have long distance services but bidders can choose to stop them there. There is, however, a requirement for a minimum number of services from Chorley to both Preston and Manchester.

 

[thealexweb]

But was it well used or did it stop there most days without anyone boarding or alighting?



They aren't allowed to carry Manchester-Bolton passengers though. They can either run the service through Bolton without stopping or stop to pick up only on northbound services and drop off only on southbound services.



I don't think there was any requirement for Chorley to have long distance services but bidders can choose to stop them there. There is, however, a requirement for a minimum number of services from Chorley to both Preston and Manchester.

I only used the night service a handful of times so I do not feel I have experienced it enough to give a good verdict.

Only 1(?) peak service may run through Bolton without stopping, which itself is crazy given the fact it will slowly trundle through at 15mph, the rest yes may be pickup / set down only. I imagine this will near impossible to enforce though. The conductor would only have 20 minutes to deal with 50+ PTE passengers.

I understand there are no requirements to give Chorley access to more of the North West I was just trying to say why should we persistently settle for mediocrity.

 

[northwichcat]

Only 1(?) peak service may run through Bolton without stopping, which itself is crazy given the fact it will slowly trundle through at 15mph, the rest yes may be pickup / set down only. I imagine this will near impossible to enforce though. The conductor would only have 20 minutes to deal with 50+ PTE passengers.

Any passenger ignoring pick-up/set-down restrictions may get caught out. The conductor won't have to announce that due to engineering works/disruption the northbound train won't be stopping at Bolton at all.

 

[thealexweb]

Any passenger ignoring pick-up/set-down restrictions may get caught out. The conductor won't have to announce that due to engineering works/disruption the northbound train won't be stopping at Bolton at all.

I am not disagreeing that some will get caught out, but the sheer volume will be unmanageable for only one of two members of staff. In a similar manner to when VTWC treated Stockport as pick up / set down only and PTE commuters definitely used their services persistently.

 

[BantamMenace]

If you start issuing £50 or £80 fines every time someone is caught on a train with a Bolton - Manchester ticket I'm sure it'd soon subside.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt a court would take that seriously as they would have a valid ticket (ish).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If Airport bound services were set down only at Bolton, it wouldn't be much good for anyone from Bolton who actually wanted the airport. A restriction on not carrying passengers from Bolton to central Manchester stations but allowing the airport would be a nightmare to enforce...

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Airport bound services were set down only at Bolton, it wouldn't be much good for anyone from Bolton who actually wanted the airport. A restriction on not carrying passengers from Bolton to central Manchester stations but allowing the airport would be a nightmare to enforce...

Indeed, u/s tends to work only where the station is the one (or ones) before the terminus.

 

[northwichcat]

If Airport bound services were set down only at Bolton, it wouldn't be much good for anyone from Bolton who actually wanted the airport. A restriction on not carrying passengers from Bolton to central Manchester stations but allowing the airport would be a nightmare to enforce...

The skipping Bolton or pick up/set down restriction argument related to Scotland to Airport services. All Blackpool-Airport services will call at Bolton, while Barrow/Windermere-Airport services could call at Bolton (depending on what bidders decide), there's also the possibility of a Wigan-Bolton-Airport EMU working in the current path of the Southport-Airport working.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the Bolton - Manchester pick up/set down restrictions for Scotland services, perhaps a local shuttle service could run from Bolton to Oxford Road or by extending the local Piccadilly - Airport service to Bolton TS, running behind the southbound service and ahead of the northbound service. This could make use of the Manchester bay platform at Bolton TS.

Alternatively, it could be done properly by extending the hourly Bristol TM - Manchester XC service to Scotland, alternating between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley as at present. This would provide Bolton TS with a restored direct service to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and parts of Gloucestershire and Somerset. Furthermore, this would also restore the direct link that was lost between Stafford and Preston via Manchester and Bolton. Obviously, if XC could get a few IC 125s from Great Western when they become available, this would enable some Super Voyagers to be transferred across from the Edinburgh - Leeds - Birmingham - South West services.

 

[Starmill]

Chorley doesn't currently have any services I would describe as particularly long-distance. Does it really need them? It is less than 15 minutes from Preston.

The problem is, I don't know if anyone has seen the 1800 from Manchester Airport recently, but last Friday it was full. 8 coaches and all seats taken, a few standing both before and after Preston, with a large number both boarding and alighting there. These trains cannot cater for Bolton and Chorley commuters as well as Manchester (+Airport) to Preston, the Lakes and Scotland traffic. Somebody is going to have to come up with a solution to that.

Goodness only knows what will happen if they try to send a portion to Liverpool, given that on the current 8-car services from Manchester you absolutely could not fit all of those people into 4.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chorley doesn't currently have any services I would describe as particularly long-distance.

It always used to have the Barrows and, post 1998 when they ceased to run via Wigan, Windermeres.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Regarding the Bolton - Manchester pick up/set down restrictions for Scotland services, perhaps a local shuttle service could run from Bolton to Oxford Road or by extending the local Piccadilly - Airport service to Bolton TS, running behind the southbound service and ahead of the northbound service. This could make use of the Manchester bay platform at Bolton TS.

Alternatively, it could be done properly by extending the hourly Bristol TM - Manchester XC service to Scotland, alternating between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley as at present. This would provide Bolton TS with a restored direct service to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and parts of Gloucestershire and Somerset. Furthermore, this would also restore the direct link that was lost between Stafford and Preston via Manchester and Bolton. Obviously, if XC could get a few IC 125s from Great Western when they become available, this would enable some Super Voyagers to be transferred across from the Edinburgh - Leeds - Birmingham - South West services.

Neither of those options is in the TPE/Northern ITTs.
The best on offer is an extension of the TPE Manchester-Scotland services to Crewe.
XC has no franchise rights on that route - they were given to TPE.
I'd expect to see more Manchester-Bolton services as part of a frequent Northern Blackpool service, not terminating short at Bolton except maybe in the peak.
There's also the Manchester-Bolton-Wigan EMU service to come, and extra trains to Blackburn (2tph).

 

[Starmill]

Alternatively, it could be done properly by extending the hourly Bristol TM - Manchester XC service to Scotland, alternating between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley as at present. This would provide Bolton TS with a restored direct service to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and parts of Gloucestershire and Somerset. Furthermore, this would also restore the direct link that was lost between Stafford and Preston via Manchester and Bolton. Obviously, if XC could get a few IC 125s from Great Western when they become available, this would enable some Super Voyagers to be transferred across from the Edinburgh - Leeds - Birmingham - South West services.

You want an hourly diesel train from Glasgow or Edinburgh to Birmingham via Manchester? Why on earth are we electrifying Manchester to Preston if that is a good idea...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It always used to have the Barrows and, post 1998 when they ceased to run via Wigan, Windermeres.

Medium-distance regional express work, much like Manchester Airport to Blackpool North, which I would support the calling of at Chorley. If you want to go to Glasgow, you are a little over 10 minutes from Preston where there is a much wider choice of trains to Scotland than Chorley will ever get.

 

[scandal]

Apologies if this has been covered previously - has the decision to split the Liverpool to Norwich services at Nottingham been dropped for the foreseeable future, or is it likely to be re-examined when the East Midlands franchise comes up for tender?

 

[Stats]

Apologies if this has been covered previously - has the decision to split the Liverpool to Norwich services at Nottingham been dropped for the foreseeable future, or is it likely to be re-examined when the East Midlands franchise comes up for tender?

The position, from DfTs consultation response, is

We will be asking the successful TPE bidder, after the franchise has been awarded, to work with stakeholders and develop proposals that would achieve the intended benefits of the remapping whilst also addressing the concerns that were raised about the adverse impacts. The Liverpool-Nottingham portion of the East Midlands Liverpool-Norwich direct service would not be remapped to TPE unless an acceptable solution can be developed that addresses the concerns of the public and stakeholders.

 

[northwichcat]

The reason for splitting is was primarily to allow use of 6 car 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham and 4 car 158s on Nottingham-Norwich. However, with North TPE electrification being delayed the 185s aren't been made available any time soon.

Most people were complaining about losing cross-Nottingham connections opposed to ensuring Liverpool and Manchester retained direct services to the likes of Peterbrough and Norwich. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future DfT decide Liverpool-Norwich should be split, with the Leeds-Nottingham service transferring from Northern to EMT to tag on to Nottingham-Norwich.

 

[Philip C]

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future DfT decide Liverpool-Norwich should be split, with the Leeds-Nottingham service transferring from Northern to EMT to tag on to Nottingham-Norwich.

This has been broached before, but no-one has explained the virtue in providing a vastly slower service between Peterborough/Grantham and Leeds than that available via Doncaster.

 

[northwichcat]

This has been broached before, but no-one has explained the virtue in providing a vastly slower service between Peterborough/Grantham and Leeds than that available via Doncaster.

The point isn't to provide a direct service to Leeds but to retain a direct cross Nottingham service. Liverpool-Norwich on the direct train is slower than via London so you could use a similar reason for arguing why Liverpool-Norwich should be split.

 

[hibtastic]

This has probably been covered already so apologies if that is the case but are there plans for a TPE Edinburgh to Liverpool service to compliment the existing Manchester service?

I am consistently amazed by how busy the west coast trains to Edinburgh are and how more capacity is needed.

A little off topic but last Friday I travelled on a VT service from Warrington to Edinburgh (1527 from Warrington BQ) and it was a single Voyager. It was absolutely rammed all the way to Edinburgh.

 

[Philip C]

The point isn't to provide a direct service to Leeds but to retain a direct cross Nottingham service. Liverpool-Norwich on the direct train is slower than via London so you could use a similar reason for arguing why Liverpool-Norwich should be split.

I think you are rather missing the point. If the purpose is to provide a service for those who wish to pass through Nottingham without changing trains then you need to identify a suitably sized market of those prepared to pay good money purely for the joy of passing through Nottingham. I suggest that these are a rare breed.

The purpose of the through service is to accommodate those who wish to travel between points on one side of Nottingham and points on the other side who would otherwise have to change trains and are without reasonable alternatives.

If we take as a common base the provision of a regular service between East Anglia (say Norwich) and Nottingham. The question then is whether this service should terminate at Nottingham or continue beyond, and if so where? If we rule out the West Midlands as already provided for by services via Leicester, and can agree that Derby/Crewe seems relatively lacking in potential, then we are left with Sheffield. I doubt that we would disagree that projecting the Norwich-Nottingham trains to Sheffield makes sense.

But linking onward to Leeds adds little to Sheffield's case. The only benefit of travelling to points beyond Nottingham via Nottingham from either Leeds or Wakefield would be limited to those going beyond Peterborough who are prepared to take a near two-hour time penalty to avoid a change at Peterborough. I appreciate that passengers from Barnsley and Meadowhall travelling to Grantham and beyond would also benefit, but doubt their numerical significance.

The suggestion that this is a better option than catering for those from the west side of the Pennines surprises me. Firstly the benefit of a through service accrues to all those travelling to Grantham and beyond (not just March/Ely and beyond as in Leeds' case); then the alternative involves two London terminii and an Underground transfer between (and note that there is no direct underground route between Euston and Liverpool Street) and, finally, the time saving of the faster route appears to be not more than an hour for travel between Liverpool and Norwich. For travel between Manchester and Norwich the London route appears to be slower.

So in summary I can find few who would benefit from diverting the Norwich-Liverpool service to Leeds and many who would materially lose. The fact that our glorious civil service has got itself well-knotted on this one really doesn't surprise.

 

[northwichcat]

This has probably been covered already so apologies if that is the case but are there plans for a TPE Edinburgh to Liverpool service to compliment the existing Manchester service?

TPE bidders must provide an hourly Manchester Airport to Scotland service. There are options to run Liverpool to Scotland and Blackpool to Scotland services but they aren't mandatory.

The suggestion in the consultation was that the service pattern from Manchester Airport would be something like:
10:00 Edinburgh
11:00 Edinburgh
12:00 Glasgow
13:00 Edinburgh
14:00 Edinburgh
15:00 Glasgow

Then alternate services would have Liverpool portions attached at Preston, meaning Liverpool gets services alternating between Edinburgh and Glasgow and Manchester gets more Edinburgh services than Glasgow services. The consultation said the latter is justified as currently there are more Glasgow services from Wigan/Preston/Cumbria than Edinburgh services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you are rather missing the point.

...

So in summary I can find few who would benefit from diverting the Norwich-Liverpool service to Leeds and many who would materially lose. The fact that our glorious civil service has got itself well-knotted on this one really doesn't surprise.

I disagree. You're missing the point.

DfT wanted to split Liverpool-Norwich to use the 185s released from North TPE on Liverpool-Nottingham services.

DfT have now said the service will not be split "unless an acceptable solution can be developed that addresses the concerns of the public and stakeholders."

Why does running a Leeds-Nottingham-Norwich service not address the concerns of the public and stakeholders when the main concerns were from people who make regular journeys such as Alfreton to Grantham, opposed to people from Liverpool/Manchester complaining about no longer having a direct Peterborough service which they may occasionally use?

 

[Philip]

Chorley doesn't currently have any services I would describe as particularly long-distance. Does it really need them? It is less than 15 minutes from Preston.

The problem is, I don't know if anyone has seen the 1800 from Manchester Airport recently, but last Friday it was full. 8 coaches and all seats taken, a few standing both before and after Preston, with a large number both boarding and alighting there. These trains cannot cater for Bolton and Chorley commuters as well as Manchester (+Airport) to Preston, the Lakes and Scotland traffic. Somebody is going to have to come up with a solution to that.

Goodness only knows what will happen if they try to send a portion to Liverpool, given that on the current 8-car services from Manchester you absolutely could not fit all of those people into 4.

Up until 18 months ago Friday afternoon/evening services from Manchester to Scotland via Bolton were formed of 2 x 185s so 6 coaches and while these were very busy I wouldn't say they were like sardines. Probably no worse than the current workings are now.

 

[Camden]

The reason for splitting is was primarily to allow use of 6 car 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham and 4 car 158s on Nottingham-Norwich. However, with North TPE electrification being delayed the 185s aren't been made available any time soon.

Most people were complaining about losing cross-Nottingham connections opposed to ensuring Liverpool and Manchester retained direct services to the likes of Peterbrough and Norwich. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future DfT decide Liverpool-Norwich should be split, with the Leeds-Nottingham service transferring from Northern to EMT to tag on to Nottingham-Norwich.

Having seen at least one influential northern consultation response on the Northern and Transpennine Express ITT giving objection to being disconnected from East Anglia as a reason, I believe the objection reasons are varied. I have seen arguments that complain about the reduction in direct destinations through Warrington, through to more fundamental and macro-economic growth arguments about east-west connections being broken rather than strengthened and the value to important cities like Liverpool of retaining full cross country links, while matching arguments have come from the other side of the country about having direct connections to northern cities. I think the Northern Powerhouse paradigm is perhaps responsible for assumptions being made, when the reality is that those making the assumptions don't actually speak for parts of the north as well as they like to think they do, this then jars with actual responses when they are given.

I also don't believe the reason for splitting the service is anything to do with improving the rolling stock operating it, as it is far more likely that it would be operated by a single class 185 train, rather than two coupled, what with crowding through three carriage services being a familiar complaint. As for the other end, well that's anyone's guess. A four carriage 158 between Nottingham and Norwich?... or a two carriage?

Vast tracts of the ITT were so obviously about saving money, why would this be about spending more?

a few standing both before and after Preston, with a large number both boarding and alighting there.

Goodness only knows what will happen if they try to send a portion to Liverpool, given that on the current 8-car services from Manchester you absolutely could not fit all of those people into 4.

The answer is in your own words there, that the people getting on and off at Preston will not be so numerous, as they will just continue sitting on the 4 carriage section going to Liverpool. If the Manchester portion is busy, it won't be as busy as you think. The number of people who join Transpennine Express services to and from Scotland at Preston is generally a large proportion of the train.

Preston is the key interchange for people going to and from Liverpool. There isn't currently a decent way of counting these passengers due to split ticketing (advance tickets from Preston and an open return from Liverpool to Preston being cost effective). Also affects some other places like Warrington, Wigan. This was spoken about by the official Scottish response to the ITT which has requested direct Liverpool services.

 

[northwichcat]

I also don't believe the reason for splitting the service is anything to do with improving the rolling stock operating it

So the inclusion of provision for 6 x 24m* car DMUs stopping at Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes and Warrington Central included in the CP5 delivery plan was nothing to do with putting doubled up 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham? Maybe you know another reason for it's inclusion?

* Network Rail refer to 24m opposed to things like 23.7m or 23.8m
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The answer is in your own words there, that the people getting on and off at Preston will not be so numerous, as they will just continue sitting on the 4 carriage section going to Liverpool. If the Manchester portion is busy, it won't be as busy as you think. The number of people who join Transpennine Express services to and from Scotland at Preston is generally a large proportion of the train.

Additionally TPE will need extra stock to do the Liverpool portions, they may get new 5 or 6 car EMUs, alternatively they could have a 12 car formations where 4 cars go to Liverpool and 8 to Manchester.

 

[Camden]

So the inclusion of provision for 6 x 24m* car DMUs stopping at Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes and Warrington Central included in the CP5 delivery plan was nothing to do with putting doubled up 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham? Maybe you know another reason for it's inclusion?

* Network Rail refer to 24m opposed to things like 23.7m or 23.8m

There are two possibilities, one is simply the possibility of the Northern Regional Express services that will be replacing the Transpennine Express services. The loss of these services has caused much disquiet and so I think there will be some pressure on to deliver a service which is perceived as comparable.

Secondly, it could be to handle the yet to be allocated sixth Transpennine Express service, which will terminate at either Liverpool Lime Street or Manchester Airport. As the Chat Moss line into Liverpool will already have the two trains per hour to Newcastle by this time, should this additional service be allocated to Liverpool, rather than being absurdly sent empty to Manchester Airport, then it is likely to be routed through Warrington (or one of the Newcastle services switched back).

Additionally TPE will need extra stock to do the Liverpool portions, they may get new 5 or 6 car EMUs, alternatively they could have a 12 car formations where 4 cars go to Liverpool and 8 to Manchester.

If they have the trains and are willing to spend the money then that would be ideal. I think it's more likely to just be a 50/50 split though.

 

[northwichcat]

There are two possibilities, one is simply the possibility of the Northern Regional Express services that will be replacing the Transpennine Express services. The loss of these services has caused much disquiet and so I think there will be some pressure on to deliver a service which is perceived as comparable.

Even though the Regional Express service will call at Birchwood not Widnes?

Secondly, it could be to handle the yet to be allocated sixth Transpennine Express service, which will terminate at either Liverpool Lime Street or Manchester Airport. As the Chat Moss line into Liverpool will already have the two trains per hour to Newcastle by this time, should this additional service be allocated to Liverpool, rather than being absurdly sent empty to Manchester Airport, then it is likely to be routed through Warrington. Bearing in mind though that just because a six carriage train is provided for, doesn't mean it will always run as six carriages.

No. TPE bidders have been told they are not allowed to use the line through Warrington Central, except during engineering works and an occasional service at a quiet time for knowledge retention purposes.

 

[Camden]

No. TPE bidders have been told they are not allowed to use the line through Warrington Central, except during engineering works and an occasional service at a quiet time for knowledge retention purposes.

I'm not aware of that. Are you sure that isn't just for the two services that have been determined? It would seem a bit strange to specify that the route a Transpennine Express train already runs on isn't to be suitable for such services in the future, when those services have yet to be defined.

Bear in mind the ITT has specified that Norwich to Liverpool services will not be split (unless concerns raised can be addressed, which due to the nature of them they can't be by splitting the service), it therefore isn't the case that the service will start from Nottingham and be a Transpennine Service, so what do you think the provision means?

 

[Philip C]

I disagree. You're missing the point.

DfT wanted to split Liverpool-Norwich to use the 185s released from North TPE on Liverpool-Nottingham services.

DfT have now said the service will not be split "unless an acceptable solution can be developed that addresses the concerns of the public and stakeholders."

Why does running a Leeds-Nottingham-Norwich service not address the concerns of the public and stakeholders when the main concerns were from people who make regular journeys such as Alfreton to Grantham, opposed to people from Liverpool/Manchester complaining about no longer having a direct Peterborough service which they may occasionally use?

The present service caters for both the occasional travellers, who may well comprise a large proportion of users on this route, and those making regular journeys, such as, between Alfreton and Grantham.

My point is that diversion to Leeds would benefit very few and disadvantage many.

I appreciate that there are, inevitably, issues concerning rolling stock.

When it comes to proposals contrary to their interests, it is inevitable that awareness and engagement in consultation is greater for those making regular rather than occasional use of services. This does not imply that the interests of occasional users are unimportant, merely that they are more thinly spread and less likely to trigger active response during consultation. On longer distance cross-country services, such as this one, I suspect that the economic importance of such passengers is relatively important by comparison with "regular" cross-Nottingham travellers (but I could be wrong).

I am a little concerned that you describe those making regular journeys as having concerns and those who may make occasional journeys as complaining. This is not a good basis for debate, but I emphasise that retention of the existing service would clearly meet both types of concern.