TPE Seeking additional Bi-mode stock

[hexagon789]

That margin would quickly disappear if the “802 like” train didn’t have a kitchen. Unless of course there are already different 802 interior layouts

GWR's 802s are different to TPEs (in more ways than one) and TPE's already have the smaller version galley (taking up two rather than three window bays - so that the DPTF seats 24 on TPE 802s vs 15 on GWR units).

Of course you could increase capacity by taking out the kitchen as per LUMO but that would only add First Class seats unless you rearranged accommodation within the train.

 

[swt_passenger]

GWR's 802s are different to TPEs (in more ways than one) and TPE's already have the smaller version galley (taking up two rather than three window bays - so that the DPTF seats 24 on TPE 802s vs 15 on GWR units).

Of course you could increase capacity by taking out the kitchen as per LUMO but that would only add First Class seats unless you rearranged accommodation within the train.

Ok thanks.

 

[Kieran1990]

I feel we will see a fleet of
802’ take over all of the main intercity North & South and the 68’s and MK5’s replaced
Sub fleet of 185s kept for locals
Currently a fleet of 19 of 802’s, add 25 on will replace all of the Mk 5’s (13 isn’t it?) and the 185’s on the hull’s.

 

[43102EMR]

Deleted

 

[Greybeard33]

That's one way of looking at it, though by the time any follow-up order entered service, the figures might look quite different. Clearly you wouldn't have 802s on Huddersfield stoppers, but broadly speaking, 25 802s would be sufficient to replace 51 185s on a 1:2 ratio.

802s have slightly less seating capacity than a double 185, though if you eliminated the kitchen in the First coach (which is eminently surplus to requirements) and instead made that a composite coach, you could probably make them equal. You would gain the benefit of having a gangway throughout, leading to improved revenue protection and customer service - although those would be very minor considerations.

In the Rail North Committee webcast you linked in your previous post, Matthew Bolton (TPE MD) described the new trains as "additional" rather than replacements, and said they were to provide increased speed, frequency and capacity on the North route "as TRU gets going".

This implies that the number of diagrams will increase post-TRU, so perhaps the intent is that some of the Mk5As will remain on the North route, using the new bi-mode locos, while some of the 185s are retained for the South route? Not much wiring for bi-mode locos to use between Cleethorpes and Liverpool, unless/until the CLC is wired.

 

[Fokx]

802s have slightly less seating capacity than a double 185, though if you eliminated the kitchen in the First coach (which is eminently surplus to requirements) and instead made that a composite coach, you could probably make them equal.

Those kitchens will be used very shortly and have always been intended to be used on the Scottish and Newcastle routes.

Part of TPE’s vision is for hot food provision (by which I mean heated sandwiches rather than Pullman dining) on selected services that was meant to be launched just before C-19. There’s currently one Anglo-Scottish service a day (a 397) trailing a new first class food offering and standard class provision launching this week. It is hoped that if successful, this will eventually lead to the long rumoured at-seat ordering similar to Avanti

 

[Watershed]

Those kitchens will be used very shortly and have always been intended to be used on the Scottish and Newcastle routes.

Part of TPE’s vision is for hot food provision (by which I mean heated sandwiches rather than Pullman dining) on selected services that was meant to be launched just before C-19. There’s currently one Anglo-Scottish service a day (a 397) trailing a new first class food offering and standard class provision launching this week. It is hoped that if successful, this will eventually lead to the long rumoured at-seat ordering similar to Avanti

I'm well aware of that, but I'll put it this way - if the kitchens hadn't been part of the design to begin with, I very much doubt they would be retrofitted now. Certainly I don't think there is any suggestion of the 185s gaining any such facilities, yet they do some pretty long distance routes (Saltburn to Manchester Airport and Liverpool to Cleethorpes will both be in the region of 3.5 hours).

For any new orders - which are intended to tie in with the shorter journey times which TRU should bring - I would be surprised if kitchens feature again.

 

[tbtc]

A few points (in no particular order):

• Whilst the rest of the railway seems to be suffering from Government penny pinching, TPE keeps getting allowed to spend more and more money - similarly the Manchester - Leeds line seems to be bullet proof (when Sheffield to Leeds can't even get the hourly two coach DMU that Arriva promised us in their franchise... the second "fast" service per hour looks like it'll never happen now)
• 
  
• Whilst other TOCs have had to wait for convoluted cascades to get anything, or have seen the arrival of their new stock meaning losing pretty much an equivalent number of existing trains, I don't think that enough attention is paid to the fact that TPE have had lots of Mk5s/ 802s for a few years without losing a single 185
• 
  
• I wouldn't argue in favour of anything that meant shorter trains, instinctively, but it's worth remembering that the doubled up 185s are a relatively new phenomena (or at least there were so few doubled up 185s until the Mk5s/802s arrived that they were a rarity), so a 5x26m "802" would still be a significant increase on what those services had had historically, even if it's slightly lower than 2x3x23m worth of 185s (depending on kitchens etc)
• 
  
• I know that we are still in a "temporary" timetable, but I thought that the longer term plans were to remove one TPE per hour between Manchester Airport and Manchester Victoria, remove one TPE per hour from York to Newcastle and remove pretty much everything TPE north of Newcastle (other than some token service to justify the money "invested" at Reston), so they'd be more likely to see a cut to units rather than an increase
• 
  
• Nobody has mentioned the prospect of "additional units for the route through Leeds" means "spare 185s" means "TPE have the resources to take on the Nottingham - Liverpool service"
• 
  
• Don't mean to sound like I'm unhappy about the prospect of additional trains (just like with the prospect of additional units for other TOCs), but it doesn't feel like this is addressing the biggest problems that we are facing right now

 

[py_megapixel]

A few points (in no particular order):

• Whilst the rest of the railway seems to be suffering from Government penny pinching, TPE keeps getting allowed to spend more and more money - similarly the Manchester - Leeds line seems to be bullet proof (when Sheffield to Leeds can't even get the hourly two coach DMU that Arriva promised us in their franchise... the second "fast" service per hour looks like it'll never happen now)
• 
  
• Whilst other TOCs have had to wait for convoluted cascades to get anything, or have seen the arrival of their new stock meaning losing pretty much an equivalent number of existing trains, I don't think that enough attention is paid to the fact that TPE have had lots of Mk5s/ 802s for a few years without losing a single 185
• 
  
• I wouldn't argue in favour of anything that meant shorter trains, instinctively, but it's worth remembering that the doubled up 185s are a relatively new phenomena (or at least there were so few doubled up 185s until the Mk5s/802s arrived that they were a rarity), so a 5x26m "802" would still be a significant increase on what those services had had historically, even if it's slightly lower than 2x3x23m worth of 185s (depending on kitchens etc)
• 
  
• I know that we are still in a "temporary" timetable, but I thought that the longer term plans were to remove one TPE per hour between Manchester Airport and Manchester Victoria, remove one TPE per hour from York to Newcastle and remove pretty much everything TPE north of Newcastle (other than some token service to justify the money "invested" at Reston), so they'd be more likely to see a cut to units rather than an increase
• 
  
• Nobody has mentioned the prospect of "additional units for the route through Leeds" means "spare 185s" means "TPE have the resources to take on the Nottingham - Liverpool service"
• 
  
• Don't mean to sound like I'm unhappy about the prospect of additional trains (just like with the prospect of additional units for other TOCs), but it doesn't feel like this is addressing the biggest problems that we are facing right now

I agree with most of that. Sprinter rather than 185 replacement should be the priority now.

I would say however, regarding your point about TPE not losing any stock when they received new stock, that it was horribly overcrowded over the course of the last franchise thanks to earlier penny-pinching meaning there weren't enough 185 carriages to go around. A large capacity increase was needed.

 

[irish_rail]

A few points (in no particular order):

• Whilst the rest of the railway seems to be suffering from Government penny pinching, TPE keeps getting allowed to spend more and more money - similarly the Manchester - Leeds line seems to be bullet proof (when Sheffield to Leeds can't even get the hourly two coach DMU that Arriva promised us in their franchise... the second "fast" service per hour looks like it'll never happen now)
• 
  
• Whilst other TOCs have had to wait for convoluted cascades to get anything, or have seen the arrival of their new stock meaning losing pretty much an equivalent number of existing trains, I don't think that enough attention is paid to the fact that TPE have had lots of Mk5s/ 802s for a few years without losing a single 185
• 
  
• I wouldn't argue in favour of anything that meant shorter trains, instinctively, but it's worth remembering that the doubled up 185s are a relatively new phenomena (or at least there were so few doubled up 185s until the Mk5s/802s arrived that they were a rarity), so a 5x26m "802" would still be a significant increase on what those services had had historically, even if it's slightly lower than 2x3x23m worth of 185s (depending on kitchens etc)
• 
  
• I know that we are still in a "temporary" timetable, but I thought that the longer term plans were to remove one TPE per hour between Manchester Airport and Manchester Victoria, remove one TPE per hour from York to Newcastle and remove pretty much everything TPE north of Newcastle (other than some token service to justify the money "invested" at Reston), so they'd be more likely to see a cut to units rather than an increase
• 
  
• Nobody has mentioned the prospect of "additional units for the route through Leeds" means "spare 185s" means "TPE have the resources to take on the Nottingham - Liverpool service"
• 
  
• Don't mean to sound like I'm unhappy about the prospect of additional trains (just like with the prospect of additional units for other TOCs), but it doesn't feel like this is addressing the biggest problems that we are facing right now

Exactly. Seems to be a magic money tree to spend on TPE meanwhile the rest of the network must muddle on, despite massive growth in passenger numbers (GWR leisure traffic). Does TPE run through the red wall or something?!!

 

[LittleAH]

Whilst the rest of the railway seems to be suffering from Government penny pinching, TPE keeps getting allowed to spend more and more money - similarly the Manchester - Leeds line seems to be bullet proof (when Sheffield to Leeds can't even get the hourly two coach DMU that Arriva promised us in their franchise... the second "fast" service per hour looks like it'll never happen now)

Given that TRU is happening as I type with full electrification between Manchester and York (and NPR is set to go via Huddersfield) it makes perfect sense to invest in rolling stock that benefits from that, rather than running 185s under wires. It's not simply TPE being allowed to spend more money - it would be utterly pointless electrifying a line if you don't have the rolling stock to go with it.

Whilst other TOCs have had to wait for convoluted cascades to get anything, or have seen the arrival of their new stock meaning losing pretty much an equivalent number of existing trains, I don't think that enough attention is paid to the fact that TPE have had lots of Mk5s/ 802s for a few years without losing a single 185

15 were due to go off lease, but were kept 1) For capacity requirements 2) Help with driver training. Not to forget TPE have now started running additional service and were supposed to run more including extending stopping services to Wakefield - something which Northern can't be bothered to run currently.

I know that we are still in a "temporary" timetable, but I thought that the longer term plans were to remove one TPE per hour between Manchester Airport and Manchester Victoria, remove one TPE per hour from York to Newcastle and remove pretty much everything TPE north of Newcastle (other than some token service to justify the money "invested" at Reston), so they'd be more likely to see a cut to units rather than an increase

The ECML was a shambles and rightfully was deferred. Transport for the North were not happy with it and many local stakeholders were fuming. However, that consultation, like the MRTF work, is short-term. New trains will, as above, make use of electrification and the additional capacity. Remember TRU's objectives - and ultimately that it seems ot be part 1 of NPR.

Exactly. Seems to be a magic money tree to spend on TPE meanwhile the rest of the network must muddle on, despite massive growth in passenger numbers (GWR leisure traffic). Does TPE run through the red wall or something?!!

I don't think GWR had to deal with 3 car trains running between several of the biggest cities in the country? Where was the money for 4 car 185s? Very simple you've taken...

 

[Fokx]

I'm well aware of that, but I'll put it this way - if the kitchens hadn't been part of the design to begin with, I very much doubt they would be retrofitted now. Certainly I don't think there is any suggestion of the 185s gaining any such facilities, yet they do some pretty long distance routes (Saltburn to Manchester Airport and Liverpool to Cleethorpes will both be in the region of 3.5 hours).

For any new orders - which are intended to tie in with the shorter journey times which TRU should bring - I would be surprised if kitchens feature again.

No the 185’s obviously won’t be retrofitted but they were fitted with fridges at quite a high cost for the improved provision of chilled food. (only for them to later realise they drew to much power and wouldn’t work).

The new orders will largely be for locomotives anyway which won’t have any effect on the kitchens of the MK5A’s. Whatever the rest of the order is however you can guarantee there will almost certainly be plans for improved catering and not just a bog standard trolly selling crisps and Kit Kat’s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The new orders will largely be for locomotives anyway which won’t have any effect on the kitchens of the MK5A’s. Whatever the rest of the order is however you can guarantee there will almost certainly be plans for improved catering and not just a big standard trolly selling crisps and Kit Kat’s.

Other than 1st, if they want to make a decent go of it they need a proper bean-to-cup coffee machine and they need to ensure delivery is reliable, i.e. it is on every train throughout, and not just part of the time, or if it's not on in e.g. the late evening the end time is very clearly publicised. People won't use it if it's not reliable.

 

[Snow1964]

I am guessing looking at it from a decent time horizon, just just short term penny pinching to replace stock that is old and becoming expensive to maintain.

6 or 7 car options is sensible as it allows the longer trains to go on the busier services where crowding is a problem, there may also be some view on connections into HS2 changing passenger flows or creating growth.

My money is on 7car version of 802, not convinced increasing from 5car to 6car gains much advantage over having the flexibility of all 5car fleet, if want extra capacity might as well go for over 100 extra seats.

 

[LittleAH]

Other than 1st, if they want to make a decent go of it they need a proper bean-to-cup coffee machine and they need to ensure delivery is reliable, i.e. it is on every train throughout, and not just part of the time, or if it's not on in e.g. the late evening the end time is very clearly publicised. People won't use it if it's not reliable.

There is in the galleys. And I'd say at seat catering would solve that. Problem is times that they are available, budget constraints mean nothing after 7pm and can't see that changing in the world we live in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is in the galleys. And I'd say at seat catering would solve that.

Yep, mobile-ordered at seat catering LNER style might work better so they can use that machine. Nobody will spend a premium price on warm cans of Stella and Nescafe these days. It has to be cold, premium beer and premium coffee. For those without a phone staff could take orders once in a while.

Problem is times that they are available, budget constraints mean nothing after 7pm and can't see that changing in the world we live in.

It's about consistency. Mark the trains in the timetable which will have it (the data does have a catering flag) and have enough spare staff etc to ensure it is ALWAYS delivered. If that fails, it just won't work.

 

[Neptune]

Whilst other TOCs have had to wait for convoluted cascades to get anything, or have seen the arrival of their new stock meaning losing pretty much an equivalent number of existing trains, I don't think that enough attention is paid to the fact that TPE have had lots of Mk5s/ 802s for a few years without losing a single 185

You seem to have forgotten that TPE lost the 9 x170’s which controversially went to Chiltern meaning that until the new trains started to arrive that the 185 fleet was stretched beyond capacity.

The 350’s were replaced by the 397’s like for like plus 2 for the new Liverpool- Scotland service.

Plus of course they took over the local services from Huddersfield in either direction costing a further 4 185’s from the main fleet (they initially had to hire a Northern 170 on one diagram as the 185 fleet was so stretched).

Once the new fleet started then the 185’s could start to be doubled up to finally give the sort of capacity that was required. Remember how overcrowded services were in 2019 on 3 car 185’s across the entire TPE network? Many many people found themselves left behind and not just on a weekend.

Nobody should be complaining about a company increasing capacity when they’ve spent years previous decrying the lack of it.

 

[LittleAH]

Yep, mobile-ordered at seat catering LNER style might work better so they can use that machine. Nobody will spend a premium price on warm cans of Stella and Nescafe these days. It has to be cold, premium beer and premium coffee. For those without a phone staff could take orders once in a while.



It's about consistency. Mark the trains in the timetable which will have it (the data does have a catering flag) and have enough spare staff etc to ensure it is ALWAYS delivered. If that fails, it just won't work.

Probably deserves a thread of its own this - one for later. But I think concentrating on certain 'flagship' services and seasonality will help. Only issue is the like of Hull would complain they're not getting a similar service.

If these new trains are procured, I'd also want to see the interiors similar to Lumo and with more luggage/pram/proper cycle space. Give people what they want/need.

 

[Halish Railway]

Could additional 802s be built at Newton Aycliffe instead of Pistoia? To the best of my knowledge Hitachi Newton Aycliffe currently have to complete EMR and AWC’s orders so additional TPE 802s will fill the order book until they have to start the HS2 order.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Nobody has mentioned the prospect of "additional units for the route through Leeds" means "spare 185s" means "TPE have the resources to take on the Nottingham - Liverpool service"

That would be a welcome outcome, but, if 25 new units replace 25 185s (minus 10 or so for the new Liverpool-Nottingham service and TPE maintenance and contingency needs), then Northern could get 15 for Man Vic/Wigan to Leeds, Halifax/Sheffield to Hull and Sheffield to Leeds/York. Allowing them to cascade some 158s to get rid of the worst 150s.

 

[Fokx]

That would be a welcome outcome, but, if 25 new units replace 25 185s (minus 10 or so for the new Liverpool-Nottingham service and TPE maintenance and contingency needs), then Northern could get 15 for Man Vic/Wigan to Leeds, Halifax/Sheffield to Hull and Sheffield to Leeds/York. Allowing them to cascade some 158s to get rid of the worst 150s.

It’s not going to be 25 replacing the 185’s. The 25 figure is including the replacement of the 68’s for a loco such as the 88 (it won’t be an 88).

 

[LowLevel]

• Nobody has mentioned the prospect of "additional units for the route through Leeds" means "spare 185s" means "TPE have the resources to take on the Nottingham - Liverpool service"

They always did with some rejigging - in fact even after the retention by EMR was announced the initial plan was to use a subfleet of 185s - this was dispensed with on cost grounds in favour of spending somewhere less than £5 million on refurbishing the whole 26 strong fleet of 158s, just announced internally last month (so a fraction of the cost of new trains), and TPE found alternative uses for the 185s. EMR have lower crewing costs, no route learning costs and Sundays inside for both drivers and guards (for employees after a certain date) and it appears money talks at the minute.

 

[RailWonderer]

TPE has more than enough 185s which are excellent units and some of the finest in the country. There is no need to replace them with any flimsy bogied Japanese stuff. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this decision, but of course (and I hope) nothing comes of it. This IET mania has to stop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPE has more than enough 185s which are excellent units and some of the finest in the country. There is no need to replace them with any flimsy bogied Japanese stuff. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this decision, but of course (and I hope) nothing comes of it. This IET mania has to stop.

One word - "wires". DMUs in large cities are going to become increasingly unacceptable, and if you've ever spent 10 minutes in Victoria (or New St for that matter) when one was sat there pumping out its thick fug you'd see why.

 

[Halish Railway]

TPE has more than enough 185s which are excellent units and some of the finest in the country. There is no need to replace them with any flimsy bogied Japanese stuff.

Unless the DfT want them elsewhere e.g. EWR.

 

[Neptune]

TPE has more than enough 185s which are excellent units and some of the finest in the country. There is no need to replace them with any flimsy bogied Japanese stuff. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this decision, but of course (and I hope) nothing comes of it. This IET mania has to stop.

Less diesel under the wires, you know, improving the environment.

 

[hexagon789]

The 25 figure is including the replacement of the 68’s for a loco such as the 88 (it won’t be an 88).

The 25 figure is entirely separate, the full Rail Gazette article makes no direct mention of the 68/Mk5s and the loco replacement, it says:

TPE would be seeking at least 25 trainsets suitable for 200 km/h operation, with a minimum of five cars and options to extend to six or seven.

The provision of additional electric-only sets in the future may also be considered.

 

[Halish Railway]

A quick add-on comment, part of me is quite worried that by having most of the services on the Diggle Route worked by Bi-modes gives the DfT an excuse to downscale TRU to a discontinuous electrification scheme, with areas that are difficult and expensive to electrifify not electrified.

 

[Neptune]

A quick add-on comment, part of me is quite worried that by having most of the services on the Diggle Route worked by Bi-modes gives the DfT an excuse to downscale TRU to a discontinuous electrification scheme, with areas that are difficult and expensive to electrifify not electrified.

There’d be nothing stopping them doing that without ordering bi-modes either so better to future proof asap than leave things as they are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There’d be nothing stopping them doing that without ordering bi-modes either so better to future proof asap than leave things as they are.

And it might genuinely be better to do "piecemeal" electrification of two routes than electrification of one and none of another. The priority has to be removing diesels from urban areas where they cause the most harm as well as stations where people breathe in their muck.