Future of TPE

[Mat17]

TPE might have excuses for the diabolical level of cancellations (I am not 100% sure) BUT it is how TPE deal with it that could be drastically improved.

Quite often now TPE don't even give reasons for their cancelled trains.

"XYZ service is cancelled, TPE apologies, passengers should travel on ZXY Northern service instead."

It's like they've given up.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Northern to Blackpool, Liverpool, hourly Crewe Manchester and Windermere/Barrow services
Transport for Wales to North Wales
TPE WCML services which really dont have anywhere else to go.

The last item above is not relevant as I stated non-TPE services.

The other ones are very specific to localised North Wales and North West areas. Nothing that covers West Yorkshire areas, such as Huddersfield and Leeds. Manchester Airport as a DfT category "B" currently is served by trains from a much wider base and to be fair, it does rank high in the British airports rankings, with two runways. Its rail passenger footfall was raising steadily until the Covid-19 pandemic arrived and the figures for 2019/20 was 5,747,000.

I have heard there are plans afoot to increase some of the platform lengths there but cannot vouch for the veracity of that information.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree it could be a problem, but I think the TPE issues are going to be ongoing for some considerable time, maybe on the scale of years not months (after all with a small break during covid its been ongoing for 5 years in May), and in that situation you have to look at what is needed v wanted. York/Hull -Manchester is a need, anything beyond that can be sacrificed until conditions allow the network to grow again. Maybe keep a couple of services a day to the outlying points to retain knowledge, and then when resources allow reintroduce a full service.

There is also the Huddersfield Dewsbury upgade in the pipeline, and that is going to further complicate matters. So TPE need to prioritise route knowledge over the Calder Valley route above serving places already adequately served by other operators.

As a passenger at Manchester if I am making for Newcastle, and there is a train to York I can complete my journey with some minor additional inconvenience, if however the next 2 or 3 services from Manchester north east are cancelled then I am going to be very late, and in all probability going to have an unpleasant journey as the train will be massivley overcrowded. (Been there, got that T shirt).

Given the current state of service and up coming works TPE should be taking a long hard look at what they do, and shouldn't be running any services beyond the core routes until the service on those routes reaches an acceptable level, and it is a very long way from that currently.

Prior to the meltdown in 2018 there were roughly 700 seats per hour between Leeds and Manchester each way throughout the day on the semi fast/fast services, the first goal should be to get back to that state or better on a consistent basis, i.e. with no gaps apart from during disruption unrealated to TPE issues. If that means fewer longer trains, and pruning the extremities thats fine, do it. Once that service pattern, whatever it looks like has run OK for some weeks or months and resources are in place, take the next small step, and if that doesn't work back track. Be very conservative in thinking to ensure resiliance, and make small incremental improvements. Once the service is seen to run reliably public confidence will return.

The south route is somewhat different, as Grimsby and Cleethorpes are much more reliant on TPE. Maybe run Cleethorpes - Doncaster as a shuttle and then run Doncaster - Manchester Pic as another service. Forget about Liverpool via the CLC or Man Airport, they are served by others.

I think curtailing some of the extremities of TPE services might not achieve much. TPE have chopped their routes up as far as driver route knowledge goes. Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds to Newcastle might well have plenty of drivers who know those routes but do not know the core route between Manchester and Leeds. That was one of the problems where TPE have backed themselves into a corner.

That is what I mean by analysing what TPE CAN run. By all means cancel some services so as to get some drivers extending their route knowledge to include the core route(s).

But as others have said a looming problem is the need for more drivers to know diversionary routes as a lot of engineering work is coming up for the TPE route upgrade(s). So even more drivers doing training instead of working service trains. I had not grasped that earlier !.

 

[njamescouk]

It says to me that TPE have no interest in the customer. TPE just do not seem capable of considering there are human beings trying to rely on TPEs desperate attempts to ignore reality.

one of the railway's biggest problems is that the customer is the government, not the passengers.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

TPE have more than sufficient resources as per Golton at last Transport Select Committee

In the case of TransPennine Express, five years ago we had 371 drivers; we now have 576 drivers and trainees. We will have recruited 113 drivers this year

and given they are running a reduced service they should have extra flexibility but clearly not. From feedback on this thread a reoccurring them seems to be the way they've carved up routes with upto four changes of crew on some routes is key contributing factor ie one crew member on a leg is vacancy whole jobs gets knocked. This is painful for passengers but also is costing the bottom line a fortune in crewing costs and TPE are running with one of the biggest subsidies now by passenger carried

Maybe this is correct strategy, im not an expert, but its about time the travelling public are given transparency from an independent assessment that the so called recovery plan will deliver the full timetable or not. Much as it might please people to see OLR takeover teh first thing they will do is crash and burn everything and reset the clock and we end up with something worse for months.

Also its disappointing see other than Alan Williams from MR any attempt by the railway press to expose the failings here by all concerned across the industry.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

OLR taking over wont achieve anything. The same bloated top hravy management structure will remain in place. Those managers responsible for the franchise being in the position it is in now will still be there making the same damaging decisions, the only difference is they wont be able to hind behind the "shareholder value" mantra so beloved of them and their inability to put customer service first

 

[Peter Sarf]

one of the railway's biggest problems is that the customer is the government, not the passengers.

Oh um well, possibly a nasty dose of reality there !.

TPE have more than sufficient resources as per Golton at last Transport Select Committee



and given they are running a reduced service they should have extra flexibility but clearly not. From feedback on this thread a reoccurring them seems to be the way they've carved up routes with upto four changes of crew on some routes is key contributing factor ie one crew member on a leg is vacancy whole jobs gets knocked. This is painful for passengers but also is costing the bottom line a fortune in crewing costs and TPE are running with one of the biggest subsidies now by passenger carried

Maybe this is correct strategy, im not an expert, but its about time the travelling public are given transparency from an independent assessment that the so called recovery plan will deliver the full timetable or not. Much as it might please people to see OLR takeover teh first thing they will do is crash and burn everything and reset the clock and we end up with something worse for months.

Also its disappointing see other than Alan Williams from MR any attempt by the railway press to expose the failings here by all concerned across the industry.

That is a healthy increase in drivers. Perhaps there was formerly a very heavy (no surprise) reliance on RDW (Rest Day Working) ?. I do agree chopping one trains journey up into several staff changes will always increase risk - so two drivers = double the risk, on a long train journey 4 drivers = 4 times the risk.

 

[daodao]

It appears from the above discussion that one of the reasons for the current high TPE cancellation rate is the practice of using different staff to operate trains just for segments of each journey.

Please could a rail employee explain why TPE drivers cannot drive the trains on the TPE routes for the whole journey length and back, and have the same guard for the entire journey? None of the TPE services take longer than 3 hours 45 minutes end-to-end, so an "out and back" journey should take no longer than 8 hours, with a rest break at the outer terminus.

I understand that for longer journeys on other TOCs, e.g. to/from Scotland, there are advantages in splitting personnel covering the service to allow staff to return home at the end of their shift, rather than "overnighting", as used to be the case, especially in steam days when drivers/firemen generally looked after their "own" locomotive.

 

[Snow1964]

It appears from the above discussion that one of the reasons for the current high TPE cancellation rate is the practice of using different staff to operate trains just for segments of each journey.

Please could a rail employee explain why TPE drivers cannot drive the trains on the TPE routes for the whole journey length and back, and have the same guard for the entire journey? None of the TPE services take longer than 3 hours 45 minutes end-to-end, so an "out and back" journey should take no longer than 8 hours, with a rest break at the outer terminus.

I understand that for longer journeys on other TOCs, e.g. to/from Scotland, there are advantages in splitting personnel covering the service to allow staff to return home at the end of their shift, rather than "overnighting", as used to be the case, especially in steam days when drivers/firemen generally looked after their "own" locomotive.

Couple of reasons :
some of the staff might not live near start and end, so have to commute to the journey commencement point (and if they commute on TPE probably late a quarter of the time)
The other is scheduling of breaks. So to allow a lunch (mid shift) break would normally work a return just over an hour later. Not great at the extremities if service only runs every 2 hours as probably going to have to wait for next return service so break will be nearer 2 hours 20 (assuming trains have a 20 minute turnaround, and run every 2 hours)

 

[daodao]

Couple of reasons, some of the staff might not live near start and end, so have to commute to the journey commencement point. The other is scheduling of breaks. So to allow a lunch (mid shift) break would normally work a return just over an hour later.

Thanks for your reply. I understand the point about the length of the mid shift break. However, in most jobs, travel to/from work is not regarded as part of the working day; it is done in the employee's own time.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I do agree chopping one trains journey up into several staff changes will always increase risk - so two drivers = double the risk, on a long train journey 4 drivers = 4 times the risk.

I think in reality the risk increases much more than this.

For example, if the driver for leg 1 isn’t available and the train is cancelled, the drivers for legs 2, 3 and 4 will arrive at stations and find there’s no train for them to drive, which then puts them in the wrong place for the rest of their shifts unless TPE control can re-jig their rosters at very short notice

 

[tbtc]

Yet again we find ourselves hamstrung by the Government decision to force the winning bidder to introduce their new firsts by a certain date, meaning First took the (regrettable!) decision to get the smaller fleets of 397/ 802/ Mk5s…

…because, whilst a normal response to staff shortages would be to run longer trains on a thinned out timetable, it’s not possible to run longer trains on most TPE services

For a start, AIUI Huddersfield can’t take doubled up 802s, and running trains that skip Huddersfield on a thinned out timetable is going to mean that any remaining service on the line is going to be dangerously crowded

Manchester Airport can’t take doubled up 397/802s either, so that’s out

And for all of the talk about how “flexible” loco hauled is, compared to DMUs, the one batch of such carriages we’ve put into service appear to be incapable of being amended into something like a seven or eight coach rake… brilliant!

Doubling up 185s is possible, of course, but First seem to be leaning heavily onto their “legacy” trains and should really have hated some over by now, given that this was the justification for the Government forcing the artificially early date for new fleets to be introduced

Can the 802s work as four coaches? (i.e. maybe a 4+4 would fit at Huddersfield/ Manchester Airport?)

As for the ideas about trimming back services… yes… The fact that something was a franchise commitment doesn’t matter any more in 2023 (as the OLR’s treatment of Northern shows!)… the likes of Reston/ Saltburn might have to take a back seat for a while… but I’ve mixed feelings about cutting Newcastle services back… although there’s duplication with other TOCs, there’s a whole TPE depot there, so would canning Newcastle services mean giving them nothing to do? Certainly a bi-hourly service to Tyneside May be more appropriate… the one bit of route I think still deserves a “full” Service would be Doncaster to Cleethorpes given that there are still three hour gaps in the OLR’s “hourly” Service from Doncaster to Scunthorpe ) so it feels kicking a line when it’s down to also cut the TPE services through Scunny.., I’m Not saying that everything needs to run west of Donny though

 

[Killingworth]

The discussion is centred on drivers. On a recent trip on a 6 car 185 there were 3 guards in the front unit and at least one in the back. Route learning is necessary for them too. From a brief conversation I gathered that they were based at the Airport and learning all routes from there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for your reply. I understand the point about the length of the mid shift break. However, in most jobs, travel to/from work is not regarded as part of the working day; it is done in the employee's own time.

That's travel to the depot/booking on point. Business travel does normally cut into the working day.

 

[skyhigh]

Thanks for your reply. I understand the point about the length of the mid shift break. However, in most jobs, travel to/from work is not regarded as part of the working day; it is done in the employee's own time.

Yes, but with your idea the crew does the whole trip. How does that work with depots which aren't at the end of the route, such as York? You'd have to include travel to the start of the route inside the duty times as the crew would begin work at York.

 

[irish_rail]

Yes, but with your idea the crew does the whole trip. How does that work with depots which aren't at the end of the route, such as York? You'd have to include travel to the start of the route inside the duty times as the crew would begin work at York.

And that is a good example of why it was a poor business decision to focus so many traincrew at the likes of York and Manchester, when in an ideal world the biggest depots would be Liverpool and Newcastle. Although I'd add 3 hrs 45 mins is a rather long continuous drive day after day, and is probably pushing it. At Plymouth we do 3hrs 15 to London have a break then work back. It works fine, but you couldn't do it 5 days a weeks as it is tiring. Some shorter trips are needed. But certainly some Liverpool to Newcastle runs should be doable, along with say Liverpool to Cleethorpes, and then say some Liverpool to York. But this nonsense of Liverpool to Manchester really is wasteful.

 

[mike57]

And that is a good example of why it was a poor business decision to focus so many traincrew at the likes of York and Manchester, when in an ideal world the biggest depots would be Liverpool and Newcastle. Although I'd add 3 hrs 45 mins is a rather long continuous drive day after day, and is probably pushing it. At Plymouth we do 3hrs 15 to London have a break then work back. It works fine, but you couldn't do it 5 days a weeks as it is tiring. Some shorter trips are needed. But certainly some Liverpool to Newcastle runs should be doable, along with say Liverpool to Cleethorpes, and then say some Liverpool to York. But this nonsense of Liverpool to Manchester really is wasteful.

It seems to me that what we have now is a result of people with no hands on experience taking decisions based purely on 'this will be cheaper'. Managers who have risen through the ranks know what is possible and will work and what will fail, and that applies to all industries, not just railways. One of the biggest failings I see in my industry is a tendancy for fresh out of Uni engineers to calculate everything and make no allowance for real world conditions or provide a margin when things go wrong, and I suspect the same problems occur in other industries. I suspect a good example from rail was at the May 2018 timetable fiasco where two trains were arriving at a single platform from opposite directions 3 minutes apart. It works on paper, but in the real world it just resulted in delays.

 

[Meerkat]

And that is a good example of why it was a poor business decision to focus so many traincrew at the likes of York and Manchester, when in an ideal world the biggest depots would be Liverpool and Newcastle.

But York and Manchester are the points most trains go through, only some of them reach Liverpool and Newcastle.

 

[MattRat]

Can the 802s work as four coaches? (i.e. maybe a 4+4 would fit at Huddersfield/ Manchester Airport?)

With how TPE are handling things, while I appreciate the idea of longer trains and less frequency to deal with the issues, you are near guaranteed to end up with just a 4 car instead. Just look at XC, and even TPE itself with 3 car 185s for examples.

 

[irish_rail]

But York and Manchester are the points most trains go through, only some of them reach Liverpool and Newcastle.

I'm not suggesting removing either depot location, just that strategically they could be smaller and Liverpool and Newcastle bigger / given more work.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It seems to me that what we have now is a result of people with no hands on experience taking decisions based purely on 'this will be cheaper'. Managers who have risen through the ranks know what is possible and will work and what will fail, and that applies to all industries, not just railways. One of the biggest failings I see in my industry is a tendancy for fresh out of Uni engineers to calculate everything and make no allowance for real world conditions or provide a margin when things go wrong, and I suspect the same problems occur in other industries. I suspect a good example from rail was at the May 2018 timetable fiasco where two trains were arriving at a single platform from opposite directions 3 minutes apart. It works on paper, but in the real world it just resulted in delays.

I fear things have gone from one extreme to another. From few outside ideas wanted to the feeling that ideas from inside are to be ignored. Furthermore we have the highest decision makers (DfT and politicians) having very little understanding of the railways encouraging new ideas from new blood that have no experience of the reality of rail operation. Mage worse by the micromanaging and I feel only money numbers count. Blind leading the blind maybe.

Your mention of the 2018 timetable fiasco reminds me of the London Bridge remodelling. While the work was going on the approaches were temporarily reduced so fewer tracks feeding the terminating platforms. If I remember correctly the idea was to run 75% of the services on 3 out of the original 4 tracks. The temporary service fell apart. A lack of understanding that an odd number of tracks means a drastic reduction required. Its more like single line running for one of the tracks - For those who don't know going from two track to one track means a far greater than 50% reduction in capacity.

So I think TPE is just a symptom of a growing problem. But if the railways are run by people controlling the money we will always risk bad decisions. Obviously the railways are at risk of becoming a bottomless money pit.

To the detail of TPE I feel that maybe TPE need to simplify rosters. It seems not all services go to the ends of the Liverpool to Newcastle route. Plus the whole route is a bit too long for a drivers day. So run it as Manchester to Newcastle and return diagrams (and vice versa) with alternate (core) services being Liverpool to York/Leeds (and vice versa). Drivers at York/Leeds and Liverpool would crew one set of services and Drivers from Newcastle/Manchester would crew the other set. Flaws would be how to get 802s to Newcastle for overnight servicing for the ends of the day it could be messy and a major flaw is I am just a crayonista !.

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe, for now at least, the simplest solution is going to be the best. So my suggestion starts with moving TPE into Northern, keeping the brand or using the abandoned Connect brand (which may be beneficial given how toxic TPE's brand now is). Then once this has bedded in look at moving the TPE stoppers across to Northern, and likewise moving some longer Northern services to TPE/Connect/Whatever. Then perhaps look at the oddball services like Cleethorpes-Manchester, Scotland-Manchester and shipping them out to more natural operators, i.e. EMR / Avanti / XC. Fairly straightforward, and hopefully alongside a rethink of what depots sign what routes. None of this has to happen overnight, a simple TUPE of staff into the new operation would be the starter for ten, along with a few stickies with the new brand name on applied to units. We can worry / argue / fight over the colours later....

Then if its even needed, and once things settle into a position where the TPE/Connect brand is sufficiently recovered think about maybe completely splitting it from the rest of Northern again, maybe. Because at the end of the day most people who use these services don't give a stuff about who runs them, what types of units are used so long as they can get a (comfortable) seat, or the colour of the outside bit. They want reasonable fares and reliable trains, hopefully going in the direction they want, and without having to constantly change trains because members of RUK forums want loads of interlocked shuttles to make the timetables look neat....

ives for cover>

 

[Jack Hay]

You could probably cut the Newcastle service back to York and it would be fine too.

But if Liverpool can't be cut then the only other (even more controversial) option is to look at Manchester. Pretty certain Avanti already have a service that goes via Manchester to Scotland, so honestly cutting that not only helps TPE, but capacity in Manchester. Then we have the route duplicates that aren't actually needed, as the Liverpool ones stop at Manchester anyway. You'd need to guarantee length, but it could theoretically work as you have more concentrated crew to make it work.

Avanti do not have any service via Manchester to Scotland, and it is unlikely to happen because Piccadilly P13/14 are not suitable for Pendolinos owing to the volume of passengers carried on them (would lead to overcrowding on the narrow platform). It would make more sense for the Scotland-Manchester services to terminate at Victoria, as in the past, avoiding Castlefield congestion; but Victoria has been so stripped out, it cannot now handle terminating trains from the west. (It has no west facing bays and no platform loops either, just four platforms on a four track railway.) So much capacity has been removed from the Manchester rail network that there are very few options left, plus the chronic congestion we all know about.

 

[Meerkat]

Maybe, for now at least, the simplest solution is going to be the best. So my suggestion starts with moving TPE into Northern,

That is clearly not the simplest solution - the simplest solution is not to add distraction with reorganisation but to get TPE working properly by reducing the timetable to one they can deliver whilst training the crew for a full recovery.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is clearly not the simplest solution - the simplest solution is not to add distraction with reorganisation but to get TPE working properly by reducing the timetable to one they can deliver whilst training the crew for a full recovery.

Given that FirstGroup did this with Avanti, why aren't they doing it for TPE? Has DaFT told them not to?

 

[Bantamzen]

That is clearly not the simplest solution - the simplest solution is not to add distraction with reorganisation but to get TPE working properly by reducing the timetable to one they can deliver whilst training the crew for a full recovery.

Well OK maybe not the simplest solution. However would reducing the TPE routes to the bare bones really be the best solution? Remember TPE (as is) is basically a long distance & commuter service, one hamstrung by not being able to run particularly long formations. So knocking services down will just cause more scrums at peak hours through the TP core. I think that would create more problems than it would solve. People may well opt not to use as many long distance services whilst Avanti trims to recover, but passengers in the core may have less of a choice.

 

[Meerkat]

Given that FirstGroup did this with Avanti, why aren't they doing it for TPE? Has DaFT told them not to?

Or they have a management that are continually saying "almost there, just need to tweak this and we will be fine next week"
In which case they need a big scary top boss a bit like one we had once
"Right stop.....the only word I want to hear out of your mouth is either yes or no, nothing else.....Are you fully ready to implement this?"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2023 ==

Well OK maybe not the simplest solution. However would reducing the TPE routes to the bare bones really be the best solution? Remember TPE (as is) is basically a long distance & commuter service, one hamstrung by not being able to run particularly long formations. So knocking services down will just cause more scrums at peak hours through the TP core. I think that would create more problems than it would solve. People may well opt not to use as many long distance services whilst Avanti trims to recover, but passengers in the core may have less of a choice.

Smaller scrums than if people turn up for trains and the trains dont show up

 

[Bantamzen]

Or they have a management that are continually saying "almost there, just need to tweak this and we will be fine next week"
In which case they need a big scary top boss a bit like one we had once
"Right stop.....the only word I want to hear out of your mouth is either yes or no, nothing else.....Are you fully ready to implement this?"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2023 ==


Smaller scrums than if people turn up for trains and the trains dont show up

That depends, fewer trains mean more passengers per train. And with no alternative along the TP North core section, its going to get very cosy, very quickly. And TPE won't have the advantage of lots of high speed running to make time up, or lovely long platforms for long formations, so scrum related delays will quickly start to magnify until a service gets canned. Then it's rinse & repeat with even more punters. Like I say that route is not a mainly long distance one, it has to also cater for commuter traffic too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That depends, fewer trains mean more passengers per train. And with no alternative along the TP North core section, its going to get very cosy, very quickly. And TPE won't have the advantage of lots of high speed running to make time up, or lovely long platforms for long formations, so scrum related delays will quickly start to magnify until a service gets canned. Then it's rinse & repeat with even more punters. Like I say that route is not a mainly long distance one, it has to also cater for commuter traffic too.

It may be necessary to limit numbers by temporarily applying pseudocompulsory reservations to discourage ticket sales for travel on trains that don't have any spare seats.

This isn't a desirable situation and I don't like that any more than you do, however it is necessary to take drastic and if necessary unpopular steps to rectify the situation. Those steps could and should be removed (yes, you, Avanti) once the situation is regularised.

 

[Bantamzen]

It may be necessary to limit numbers by temporarily applying pseudocompulsory reservations to discourage ticket sales for travel on trains that don't have any spare seats.

This isn't a desirable situation and I don't like that any more than you do, however it is necessary to take drastic and if necessary unpopular steps to rectify the situation. Those steps could and should be removed (yes, you, Avanti) once the situation is regularised.

On a commuter route where there is no alternative service? I'm thinking Leeds-Huddersfield in particular. There might be some scope to punt Manchester-Leeds passengers onto Northern Calder services (and from what I've seen some punters already use this), but they don't have a lot of wriggle room especially in the peaks, so you could end up turning one problem into two.