Yes, they are the Manchester-Bournemouth services - still hourly as per pre-Covid but about half are now terminating at Reading.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
TPE May 2022 Unit Allocation
- Thread starter Purple Orange
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TheBigD
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 2,043
Except on Sundays when they ran via Coventry. Less services on the Brum-Coventry corridor meaning paths are available on the Sundays.
Dspatula
Member
Been having a look a TPEs proposed timetable two interesting trains;
1H49 1852 Lime Street to Manchester Airport with the note; forms 1S88 currently a Preston train but previously the last departure from Manchester to Edinburgh.
1E51 1954 Manchester Victoria to Leeds with the note; formed from 1M91, with 1M91 being the train from Edinburgh which currently forms 1S88.
Make of that what you will.
1H49 1852 Lime Street to Manchester Airport with the note; forms 1S88 currently a Preston train but previously the last departure from Manchester to Edinburgh.
1E51 1954 Manchester Victoria to Leeds with the note; formed from 1M91, with 1M91 being the train from Edinburgh which currently forms 1S88.
Make of that what you will.
Potentially the rumoured use of 802s on the West Coast due to 397 reliability / getting 802s to Scotland - might allow the residual services north of Newcastle to be withdrawn.
Dspatula
Member
The TPE service north of Newcastle is removed by the may 2022 east coast timetable.
Interestingly the most reasonable service for 1H49 to form from is 1F72 from Scarborough which suggests 802, but at the same time the evening Scarborough to Manchester airport runs are still retained and usually used to move mark 5 set to the Manchester depot.
1H49 is more likely to be a 397 formed from an Anglo-Scottish service worked by a Manchester Airport conductor and (Preston?) driver.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Reliability of the 397s isn’t a major issue anymore, most of the cancellations on the Scottish routes lately has been caused by issues on the line themselves and not the 397 trains.
However there is one particular unit known which is allegedly more troublesome
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Reliability of the 397s isn’t a major issue anymore, most of the cancellations on the Scottish routes lately has been caused by issues on the line themselves and not the 397 trains.
However there is one particular unit known which is allegedly more troublesome
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Could we see the residual 802s used to bolster Manchester-Scotland services on the WCML? To achieve an hourly Glasgow and an hourly Edinburgh, 9 units are needed.
Manchester Airport to Scotland services run on an eight hour cycle, not nine. The plan appears to have been 12 397 units for 10 diagrams - eight Manchester, two Liverpool.
Paths north of Newcastle will still be needed to get to Craigentinny, this has been confirmed within TPE.
Dspatula
Member
1H49 could be 397 but there's no reason I can see for splitting 1M91 and having it (as far as I can tell from this timetable) terminate at Victoria with 1H49 using it's path between Piccadilly and the airport.
No matter what 1H49 is though the new 1M91 can't be a 397 because it forms 1E51 to Leeds.
The most logical reason I can think for doing this is to swap 802 sets in and out of Edinburgh; 1M91 to 1E51 out and 1H49 to 1S88 in.
Are we going to see 802’s coming up the WCML alongside the 397’s within the next year at all? I’m assuming that, if we are, they’ll mainly work the Edinburgh services?
It's to help circulate the 802s into Craigentinny. One or two a day max.
It might not be in the next year, but I would certainly expect it to happen. It could be Glasgow services too, just depends on how things fall.
If there are only a handful of Newcastle-Edinburgh services (likely involving one rotation) then ideally you want another rotation to/from Craigentinny. Also:
397 availability is not high enough to allow for the resumption of the pre-Covid timetable. So 802s will likely be needed, possibly on a medium to long term basis.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,355
Possibly - if/when Liverpool to Scotland via WCML needs to be improved. But probably somewhat later than 2022.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Nothing spare? There was nine 350s running this service at one point.
There was no Liverpool service during that time
Even so, current timetables have 1 397 on use for the Liverpool diagrams. So 9 trains would be required to provide the full MIA - Scotland service. With 3 spare.
The idea that 397 is not high enough is simply not true, despite their issues. It's hours lost on driver training/competency that's the issue currently.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I’m not sure the Liverpool service is quite relevant to the question of increasing frequency of the Manchester service. Back when it was just Manchester to Scotland with 350s, there was a long period where 9 units were used to operate an hourly service (the 10th was taken out of action for some reason). That suggests that potentially 9 802 units would be required to increase frequency to 2 tph between Manchester & Scotland. Liverpool-Scotland is a separate issue.
There really isn't capacity for 2tph Manchester to Scotland - lengthening the trains would be the first priority (along with making the TPE trains cost the same as the Avanti ones so as not to distort the market towards the shorter rolling stock).
It is 8 units, not 9, the 9th was spare - eg 0810 Manchester Airport to Edinburgh works the 1212 Edinburgh to Manchester Airport then the 1610 Manchester Airport to Edinburgh. (Maybe I'm at cross purposes and you are indicating that a fleet of 9 units was able to maintain 8 diagrams but at the same time 185s could deputise when necessary which they can't now.)
Last edited:
9 units would be required in service to operate the full MIA-Scotland service (8 units) plus the current Liverpool service (1 unit).
I must be imagining the near-daily occurrences of Manchester Airport services being curtailed at Piccadilly to do a unit swap.
If the full pre-Covid Liverpool service is to be reintroduced - or even perhaps something more than that - then the 397s will need to become a lot more reliable (
yeah, right!) or 802s will need to become involved. The latter kills two birds with one stone and so is what will end up happening.It's really saying something when the 350s were more reliable in turning out 8 out of 9 units (whilst one of the units was being repaired after 'the horse incident'), than the 397s are at turning out 7 out of 12 units.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Yes I was referring to the idea that a fleet of 9 can maintain 8 diagrams, but then if there isn’t the capacity, there isn’t the capacity.
The trouble with lengthening trains is that it would take an additional order for carriages. 10 car trains is probably too much, whereas what would work for TPE (and going forward with NPR) would be a train which the equivalent of a 7-car 802 or 8-car 397.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,355
Even 8 coach (2x Class350) were inadequate for some of the busier (pre-Covid) Manchester - Edinburgh services. And with more than one 8 coach formation on some days, that sometimes left an inadequate 3 coach 185 for some Manchester / Glasgow services.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
An 8 car 350 isn’t enough, but an 8 car 397 or a 7 car 802 is the equivalent of a 10 car 350.
sjm77
Member
Moderators; This topic covers rolling stock and also diagramming so I am not sure of the best place for this thread!
Does anybody know what TPEx's plans are for using which stock on which services from 2022? We know that TPEx originally only ordered the bare minimum of stock to cover the failed 2018 timetable with 10 minute turnarounds. The Mark 5s were going to cover Liverpool-Scarborough and Manchester Airport-Middlesbrough. The 802s were going to cover Liverpool-Edinburgh and Manchester Airport to Newcastle. When turnarounds were corrected 2 additional diagrams were needed so the plan was to retain 2 C185 diagrams on the Middlesbrough services.
Now from the 2022 timetable we have;
Liverpool - Scarborough, presumably all Mk Vs owing to the new stabling depot at Scarborough.
Liverpool - Newcastle, obviously will be 802s as the 125mph capability is needed North of York.
We now have spare 802s so where will they be used?
Will Middlesbrough (now Saltburn) get a mix of 802s and Mk Vs?
Will 802s be used on the Victoria - York services?
What will work the Scarborough - York peak extras?
With the Hull services performing a stopping role between Stalybridge and Huddersfield all day maybe 185s are best as long as 6 cars are used!
Does anybody know what TPEx's plans are for using which stock on which services from 2022? We know that TPEx originally only ordered the bare minimum of stock to cover the failed 2018 timetable with 10 minute turnarounds. The Mark 5s were going to cover Liverpool-Scarborough and Manchester Airport-Middlesbrough. The 802s were going to cover Liverpool-Edinburgh and Manchester Airport to Newcastle. When turnarounds were corrected 2 additional diagrams were needed so the plan was to retain 2 C185 diagrams on the Middlesbrough services.
Now from the 2022 timetable we have;
Liverpool - Scarborough, presumably all Mk Vs owing to the new stabling depot at Scarborough.
Liverpool - Newcastle, obviously will be 802s as the 125mph capability is needed North of York.
We now have spare 802s so where will they be used?
Will Middlesbrough (now Saltburn) get a mix of 802s and Mk Vs?
Will 802s be used on the Victoria - York services?
What will work the Scarborough - York peak extras?
With the Hull services performing a stopping role between Stalybridge and Huddersfield all day maybe 185s are best as long as 6 cars are used!
47827
Member
The Scarborough to York extras will probably be 185s although theoretically you could waste a mk5 set on them if they are the right crew (presume not though).
I recall a similar thread to this one saying a small number of 802s would start working an odd service on the WCML as they could do with a slightly greater pool of stock for that line. Think the 802s were mentioned for Manchester to York too although theoretically there would be other stock that could do them without crewing challenges.
I recall a similar thread to this one saying a small number of 802s would start working an odd service on the WCML as they could do with a slightly greater pool of stock for that line. Think the 802s were mentioned for Manchester to York too although theoretically there would be other stock that could do them without crewing challenges.
Mk5a's will be on the Saltburn route.
802s on MCV to York & Liverpool to Newcastle's and potentially additional Newcastle to Edinburgh's.
Scarborough will be a mix of what currently runs up there now.
185s cover everything else.
The prospective North route timetable is available as part of the ECML consultation. It has Hull picking up stopping services all day giving a 30 min frequency, which seems like overkill currently and even in normal times off-peak.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Vic-York seems such a waste of an 802 when it should better utilise the wires up the ECML on the Middlesbrough/Saltburn services, with Mk5s on the Vic-York route.
On the other hand it is appropriate for passenger capacity and traincrew knowledge.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Well if it is appropriate for passenger capacity, it is appropriate for Manchester Airport - Middlesbrough, given that also does Vic-York. As for train crew knowledge, I’m not the best placed to cast a judgement, but from from outside the industry looking in, that appears to be a weak reason.
There's plenty of reasons, including that with MRTF the service in question will still run through to the Airport outside of peak times etc. Problem is, you're looking at it from a May 22 point of view, which is only a short-term timetable. What's the point in putting 802s on a different route requiring significant traction training, when say in Dec 23, the medium/long-term plan is different.
- Status