Could the Transpennine Express get High Speed Class 43/91?

[D365]

(or maybe even 12 car)

Do bear in mind, when taking into account platforms lengths and track layouts, the relative carriage lengths, when you suggest a multiple unit specification. Class 444 (also 185, 380) use 23m carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A new build of either 185s or 350s is not an option, the designs don't meet the current crash regs. Also for 350s, Siemens don't offer them any more anyway, they were superseded by the 380s. Any new DMU unit by them will probably be based on the 380s

If going new, I would suggest bi-modes, either (preferably) in a fixed formation of 5 or 6x23m, or in 3-car formations but with enough of them built for most trains to be 6-car. Then cascade the 185s to Northern for the new express services, and send the 350s to LM allowing them to release the 319s.

Doors at thirds probably make sense due to the high loadings, but seating should be to an InterCity standard. First class at the cab end, not in the middle.

 

[DarloRich]

Yet another assertion that a 4x20m commuter EMU is 'fine' for a 300 mile inter-city journey. It's like DfT are paying you all off!?

Whilst not as good as a 47 and 6 or 7 coaches or an HST (obviously ) the 350/185's fine! The layout is decent enough, there are a good mix of table & non table seats, there are plenty of toilets, there are plugs and there is sensible first class provision. The trains are reliable, fast, and popular with normal passengers.

Plus I also get a chance to trot out that line beloved by so many Voyagerists: Most people don't use the train for the whole journey. Although in the case of TPE it is actually true.

What there isn't is enough units or carriages within those units.

Before you start I am a regular user of peak time TPE travel. As for a 300 mile journey :roll: Where might that be on TPE?

 

[northwichcat]

Aren't the concerns about Warrington Central and South Parkways platforms and commuters irrelevant as they will not be served by Transpennine beyond the December 2017 timetable change. It was decided Transpennine would run half hourly via the Chat Moss in the ITT if I recall.

Yes. Also once the Ordsall Chord is up and running Victoria will have 4tph to York, most of which will call at Huddersfield and Leeds only. Slower services from Piccadilly will call at stations like Stalybridge and Dewsbury. I don't think anyone would argue if the express Virgin and stopping LM services from Euston were in the same franchise they should all get commuter stock, but for TPE people seem to be making an argument not all that dis-similar to that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for a 300 mile journey :roll: Where might that be on TPE?

The next franchise will have an option for extending Liverpool to Newcastle services to Edinburgh, surely that must be getting on for a 300 mile journey, even if most people aren't likely to travel end to end.

 

[nottsnurse]

Use the HSTs currently based at Edinburgh Craigentinny.

Then it'll be cast-offs from the North!

Or the EMT HSTs, then they'll be 'cast-offs' from smack bang in the middle of TPE land.

Your move Paul.

"But, but, but..."

 

[swt_passenger]

Especially as, iirc, those ten 350s are leased to LM and then subleased to TPE.

You recall incorrectly though. The contract was novated to TPE. That means legally transferred completely.

 

[miami]

Whilst not as good as a 47 and 6 or 7 coaches or an HST (obviously ) the 350/185's fine! The layout is decent enough, there are a good mix of table & non table seats, there are plenty of toilets, there are plugs and there is sensible first class provision. The trains are reliable, fast, and popular with normal passengers.

Are there plugs in standard?

Wales seems to cope with 175s on the Cardiff-Manchester (>3h)/Holyhead (>5h) run, and there will be far more people travelling for 2h+ on those routes -- longer than Liverpool to York -- than travel 2h+ on TPE. The end-to-end run is longer than Liverpool-Newcastle (Milford Haven to Manchester at 6 hours direct is twice as long as Liverpool-Newcastle, and one of the longest journeys in the country)

Why not 180s? Why do they have such a bad rep?

Plus I also get a chance to trot out that line beloved by so many Voyagerists: Most people don't use the train for the whole journey. Although in the case of TPE it is actually true.

I far prefer Voyagers to pendilinos on journeys of 2-2.5h

 

[DarloRich]

Are there plugs in standard?

Certainly at the tables.

I far prefer Voyagers to pendilinos on journeys of 2-2.5h

I DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[northwichcat]

Wales seems to cope with 175s on the Cardiff-Manchester (>3h)/Holyhead (>5h) run, and there will be far more people travelling for 2h+ on those routes -- longer than Liverpool to York -- than travel 2h+ on TPE. The end-to-end run is longer than Liverpool-Newcastle (Milford Haven to Manchester at 6 hours direct is twice as long as Liverpool-Newcastle, and one of the longest journeys in the country)

But then you've got the same argument as with TPE, they finish up being used by a lot of commuters as well as long distance travellers.

When the 175s were ordered the longest service they were intended to run was Birmingham to Holyhead. Now the longest service they run is Manchester to Milford Haven.

Manchester to Milford Haven is a lot shorter than XC's Aberdeen to Penzance service taking 13 hours 20 minutes, even the shorter runs between Edinburgh and Plymouth are 8 hours 40 minutes.

 

[380101]

I wonder why the Class 380 have such an ugly-looking angular front end?

Crash regs. Also it looked pretty decent before some idiot in Transport Scotland decided they needed front end gangways. The original 380 design had a front the same as the class 700 ross rail are getting.

Visibility to the right is rubbish due to the gangway and interior cab layout is terrible. Apart from that it is a good train to drive and hardly ever fails. I have had 1 failure in 3 years due to a dodgy microswitch on a cab door preventing interlock being achieved.

 

[northwichcat]

before some idiot in Transport Scotland decided they needed front end gangways.

So a forward thinking person is an idiot because Siemens couldn't make the front end look nice?

 

[The Ham]

The AT300 design does have the raised central floor that wouldn't work with a mid-door design. However, there's nothing to say that a smaller diesel package could be slipped under a AT200 design.

Quite.

Although, given that the AT300 which has an engine under every odd numbered coach (i.e. 1, 3 and 5 or 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9), there is nothing to say that the AT200's couldn't have smaller engines under more coaches (e.g. 1 and 3 on a three coach set or under every coach) to provide a suitable (but lower*) level of power.

*bearing in mind that an AT200 train would likely have a lower top speed than the AT300 when only using their diesel engines.

I could see that a 110 mph (electric) and 90 mph (diesel) 3 coach bi-modal set could provide a useful way of ending up with either a uniform fleet of bi-modal's or being able to have just bi-modal's and 185's so as to remove the need for micro fleets (10 or less sets) of units.

There would need to ensure that if 3 coach sets were ordered that enough were ordered to allow the running of pairs of them on many of the services run by the 350's as well as increasing the number available for doubling up more services currently tun as single 185's, so for a uniform fleet somewhere in the region of 285 to 390 coaches (95 to 130 sets).

 

[47802]

Quite.

Although, given that the AT300 which has an engine under every odd numbered coach (i.e. 1, 3 and 5 or 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9), there is nothing to say that the AT200's couldn't have smaller engines under more coaches (e.g. 1 and 3 on a three coach set or under every coach) to provide a suitable (but lower*) level of power.

*bearing in mind that an AT200 train would likely have a lower top speed than the AT300 when only using their diesel engines.

).

Would you care to explain that it makes no sense what so ever to me, my understanding of AT300 is Driving Cars don't have an engine, as they have a flat floor and accommodate a pantograph in the roof. On 5 car units all Non Driving Cars have an engine underneath, and 9 car units have 2 Non Driving Cars without an engine as well as the 2 Driving Cars, how does that work with your odd numbered description? If you are talking about a 4 or 5 car AT200 design using a smaller engine with flat floor and perhaps at least one of the Driving Cars with an underfloor engine maybe that would be possible

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crash regs. Also it looked pretty decent before some idiot in Transport Scotland decided they needed front end gangways.

End gangways are useful on any DMU or EMU that will run in service in multiple, for access by staff, passengers and (if applicable) the buffet trolley. Not providing them just so a unit looks a bit nicer is silly. Though I recognise the issues for drivers - I do wonder why the UK has never tried the "rubber ring gangways" allowing a full-width cab as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst not as good as a 47 and 6 or 7 coaches or an HST (obviously ) the 350/185's fine! The layout is decent enough, there are a good mix of table & non table seats, there are plenty of toilets, there are plugs and there is sensible first class provision. The trains are reliable, fast, and popular with normal passengers.

The location of First Class on the 185s is silly; it should have been at the outer end either side of the end door in the manner of the Class 321. That aside, they are indeed otherwise very nice, just that they should have been 4-car with an option (taken up) to extend to 5.

A 5-car Class 170/172 in the same layout would also have been quite nice, though the Siemens product wins in terms of luggage provision, with overheads that will take even the largest trolley suitcase with ease.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Would you care to explain that it makes no sense what so ever to me, my understanding of AT300 is Driving Cars don't have an engine, as they have a flat floor and accommodate a pantograph in the roof. On 5 car units all Non Driving Cars have an engine underneath, and 9 car units have 2 Non Driving Cars without an engine as well as the 2 Driving Cars, how does that work with your odd numbered description? If you are talking about a 4 or 5 car AT200 design using a smaller engine with flat floor and perhaps at least one of the Driving Cars with an underfloor engine maybe that would be possible

Driving cars house the transformer equipment in the void under the floor where an engine would go otherwise.

 

[47802]

Driving cars house the transformer equipment in the void under the floor where an engine would go otherwise.

Yes but say on a 4 or 5 car unit I presume you wouldn't nessesarly need that on both Driving Trailers, but obviously that might be a significant redesign compared with the current At300, but if its an At200 with smaller engines it will be a significant redesign anyway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You recall incorrectly though. The contract was novated to TPE. That means legally transferred completely.

Thanks I stand corrected. I would be surprised if those ten 350s did not end up at LM eventually. But then again if that takes a long time the 350s might start getting spread around even more. Witness the 319s getting shared around. Difference though is that the 350s are good for services that stop more than the intercity services they share the same tracks with !. So currently I imagine the best places for them is where they work on the WCML (North and South).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because a short hop on London Overground is definitely a valid comparison to a 300 mile IC journey...

I am not suggesting a 378 with so few seats is suitable for a service that is arguably intercity. What I am saying is that multiple units such as the 350 or 185, whilst inferior by intercity standards, are less of a compromise than the 378s where I travel from West Croydon station to Highbury and Islington station and the journey takes fifty minutes with no toilet. Plus I am unlikely to get a seat until North of Canada Water which is still not a "short hop" at 30 minutes.

 

[DarloRich]

The next franchise will have an option for extending Liverpool to Newcastle services to Edinburgh, surely that must be getting on for a 300 mile journey, even if most people aren't likely to travel end to end.

Should be just over 300 - hope their are paths north of Edinburgh

 

[Starmill]

Sorry, Manchester to Glasgow is only about 240 miles. Totally not an IC journey there is it DarloRich. And nobody ever travels all the way for all 3 hours do they? No chance!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Thanks I stand corrected. I would be surprised if those ten 350s did not end up at LM eventually. But then again if that takes a long time the 350s might start getting spread around even more. Witness the 319s getting shared around. Difference though is that the 350s are good for services that stop more than the intercity services they share the same tracks with !. So currently I imagine the best places for them is where they work on the WCML (North and South).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I am not suggesting a 378 with so few seats is suitable for a service that is arguably intercity. What I am saying is that multiple units such as the 350 or 185, whilst inferior by intercity standards, are less of a compromise than the 378s where I travel from West Croydon station to Highbury and Islington station and the journey takes fifty minutes with no toilet. Plus I am unlikely to get a seat until North of Canada Water which is still not a "short hop" at 30 minutes.

Probably the only other place the 10 TPE 350s would go is to SWTs. Do the LM 350/1s still have their dual-voltage stuff? If they do then perhaps 10 of them could go from LM to SWT and the 10 TPE 350/4s could goto LM. It would save the hassle of installing the dual voltage stuff on the 350/4s

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry, Manchester to Glasgow is only about 240 miles. Totally not an IC journey there is it DarloRich. And nobody ever travels all the way for all 3 hours do they? No chance!

So not 300 then

Of course people travel all the way although by observation most of TPE custom is shorter runs. I have traveled form Manchester to Glasgow often enough as it is cheaper than Virgin. The train is fine for that journey. It just isn't long enough.

The same train is perfectly fine in the same configuration for Crewe - Euston which takes 2hrs 55mins compared to Manchester - Glasgow which takes 3hrs 13 mins despite the first being a shorter journey by about 100 miles.

Of the problems with TPE, on any objective viewing, train type can not be said to be one of them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So not 300 then

Of course people travel all the way although by observation most of TPE custom is shorter runs. I have traveled form Manchester to Glasgow often enough as it is cheaper than Virgin. The train is fine for that journey. It just isn't long enough.

The same train is perfectly fine in the same configuration for Crewe - Euston which takes 2hrs 55mins compared to Manchester - Glasgow which takes 3hrs 13 mins despite the first being a shorter journey by about 100 miles.

Of the problems with TPE, on any objective viewing, train type can not be said to be one of them.

DarloRich mentions Euston-Crewe and I have done various journeys from Euston to beyond the West Midlands travelling on 350s. I actually prefer the 350s to the Pendolinos as they seem to be less claustrophobic and fussy !. I only tried the longer distance LM service first time as it was cheaper. So I would not want to pay more for an intercity train if it was a Pendolino even if quicker.

I would love to see HSTs or 67/68 powered 442s on Transpennine Express but practicalities mean that is only a wish - I fear.

To recap I do believe one problem for TPE is that it is arguably an intercity service that doubles as a more urban service in places. If there was the track capacity then there would be a clearer division of types of train and stopping patterns.

I do think that maybe the "excuse" for replacing the 350s and 185s is that they could be used elsewhere and that TPE is more deserving of HSTs and 442s than most routes. Off topic but maybe the lesser Cross Country routes for 442s ?.

 

[Starmill]

What? Crewe to London has faster trains which, shockingly, have end doors and an IC layout! Lots of people use Manchester <> London services (a shorter journey by far than to Glasgow) to commute between Stoke and Manchester, a half an hour journey. So should we run the equivalent of a 12-car 350 on that?

The use of 1/2 2/3 doors is not appropriate for trains which make journeys which stop relatively infrequently and where everyone is expected to get a seat because it means significantly fewer seats per coach and creates draughts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The use of 1/2 2/3 doors is not appropriate for trains which make journeys which stop relatively infrequently and where everyone is expected to get a seat because it means significantly fewer seats per coach and creates draughts.

It doesn't mean significantly fewer seats. An end-doored coach has vestibules a bit wider than one door leaf of a 1/3 2/3 layout train, and the same number of them, so at most two rows are lost, probably more like one and a half.

As for draughts, if it stops infrequently...

 

[Peter Sarf]

What? Crewe to London has faster trains which, shockingly, have end doors and an IC layout! Lots of people use Manchester <> London services (a shorter journey by far than to Glasgow) to commute between Stoke and Manchester, a half an hour journey. So should we run the equivalent of a 12-car 350 on that?

The use of 1/2 2/3 doors is not appropriate for trains which make journeys which stop relatively infrequently and where everyone is expected to get a seat because it means significantly fewer seats per coach and creates draughts.

In a perfect world intercity routes would get intercity stock that did not stop at so many stations. But, last time I looked, Transpennine runs on a lot of two track route so cannot overtake more frequently stopping services by using the "fast lines". Maybe this will be resolved, partly at least, with the un-paused TPE electrification and the infrastructure upgrades that need to be done at the same time. But I suspect that if things get that ambitious there will be no money to spend on it and electrification will be forgotten about !.

 

[AM9]

A better offering from Siemens would be an updated version of the 444 (obviously AC mode), incorporating improvements made to the overall design of Desiros, but possibly as 10 car units (or maybe even 12 car)

Siemens future offering of trains to replace the 444s look like having 1/3, 2/3 doors. The recently announced Desiro Verve range has a front end similar to the Aventra and the AT200s. In other words, they are all meeting the needs of train operators where end doors are seen to be as a thing of the past. They slow down egress and ingress at busy stations and have very little standing capacity once the seats have been taken.
Modern 1/3, 2/3 stock has passenger operated doors which means that heat of cooling can be failry well maintained even when there is occasional opening of the doors. So expect trains in the future, with maximum speeds of up to 125mph to not have end doors unless they are on 'long thin' routes where the additional dwell times can be tolerated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What? Crewe to London has faster trains which, shockingly, have end doors and an IC layout! Lots of people use Manchester <> London services (a shorter journey by far than to Glasgow) to commute between Stoke and Manchester, a half an hour journey. So should we run the equivalent of a 12-car 350 on that?

Just compare the minimum dwell times between the 390 and 350 services. Even allowing for the steps extending and retracting, the time for passengers to board and or alight negates the additional 15mph speed capability over many of the gaps between stations.

The use of 1/2 2/3 doors is not appropriate for trains which make journeys which stop relatively infrequently and where everyone is expected to get a seat because it means significantly fewer seats per coach and creates draughts.

The 140mph 395s with 1/3, 2/3 sliding doors don't have problems with draughts so why should any new designs have a problem especially if they have plug doors. End doors will be reserved for the longest journey non-stop trains in the future. Get used to it.

 

[DarloRich]

What? Crewe to London has faster trains which, shockingly, have end doors and an IC layout! Lots of people use Manchester <> London services (a shorter journey by far than to Glasgow) to commute between Stoke and Manchester, a half an hour journey. So should we run the equivalent of a 12-car 350 on that?

The use of 1/2 2/3 doors is not appropriate for trains which make journeys which stop relatively infrequently and where everyone is expected to get a seat because it means significantly fewer seats per coach and creates draughts.

what on earth are you wibbling on about?

 

[Starmill]

The 140mph 395s with 1/3, 2/3 sliding doors don't have problems with draughts so why should any new designs have a problem especially if they have plug doors. End doors will be reserved for the longest journey non-stop trains in the future. Get used to it.

395s don't make particularly long nor particularly non-stop journeys and yet they have very small vestibules and narrow doors. Indeed, as primarily commuter trains rather than IC ones it'd be more appropriate for them to have wide doors and fewer seats. Not so something used for Manchester to Scotland.

 

[Haydn1971]

Personally, the draught issue is overplayed - never been a big deal, plus on a rammed train, it's nice to get a blast of air

 

[Peter Sarf]

Personally, the draught issue is overplayed - never been a big deal, plus on a rammed train, it's nice to get a blast of air

However that's only if its from the doors !.

I'll get me coat.