Future of TPE

[Peter Sarf]

1: I think so, kicking the can down the road is their stock approach. I think a lot of demand for the TPE has moved to other TOCs and the roads. It's possible it won't recover unless proper investment is made, beyond the TRU, I mean actually getting the TPE routes back to health again.
2: No. What 'unpleasant conclusions' did you have in mind? If TPE was dissolved tomorrow and operations were split up even assuming the costs of training would be absorbed by the DfT other TOCs are far more competant in managing crisis and getting up to scratch and being efficient. TPE is just an unfit operation full stop. It's an oportunity to gut the current management is how I see it. Obviously all academic as DfT will not be coughing up.

I can see, given time, TPE destroying their own justification to exist with no need for most of the services so an "easy" solution. Then, furthermore, I fear DfT say look there is so little demand what is the point in the TRU.

---

The railway is in bad need of pulling its socks up and sorting itself out where it can by itself for itself.

 

[MattRat]

1: I think so, kicking the can down the road is their stock approach. I think a lot of demand for the TPE has moved to other TOCs and the roads. It's possible it won't recover unless proper investment is made, beyond the TRU, I mean actually getting the TPE routes back to health again.

Speaking of TRU got me thinking about NPR. If the current fiasco has reduced demand, wouldn't that damage the business case for NPR, which might turn into "no demand, no NPR".

And of course, the longer the DFT put their head in the sands about the problem, the more it might look intentional if that statement is said further down the line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Have any of the rail unions made any comment concerning a greatly reduced TPE timetable that could affect their union members in an adverse way?

 

[LittleAH]

Can I just say this thread has turned absolutely wild, with all sort of nonsense flying around.

1) TPE won't be merging with Northern - something which would create even more issues and solve absolutely nothing.
2) TRU is happening. To suggest it's not needed because of the ongoing TPE issues is absolutely bonkers.
3) Emergency timetables aren't the silver bullet some seem to think they are. See DfT requirements and political stakeholder reactions.

In the short term the option for TPE is either 1) Contract extension with First Group but with significant change at the top and caveats on performance or 2) Operator of Last Resort.

Either of those won't resolve the fundamental issues and causes of TPE's problems. Which has been a combination, IMO, of DfT being useless and woeful senior leadership at TPE.

 

[RailWonderer]

I can see, given time, TPE destroying their own justification to exist with no need for most of the services so an "easy" solution. Then, furthermore, I fear DfT say look there is so little demand what is the point in the TRU.

---

The railway is in bad need of pulling its socks up and sorting itself out where it can by itself for itself.

Speaking of TRU got me thinking about NPR. If the current fiasco has reduced demand, wouldn't that damage the business case for NPR, which might turn into "no demand, no NPR".

And of course, the longer the DFT put their head in the sands about the problem, the more it might look intentional if that statement is said further down the line.

There is always the vicious cycle possiblity, where falling demand leads to a fall in investment which leads to a fall in ridership etc, although the funding has already (I think) been earmaked so TRU is happening (though I don't know about the rest of NPR).

Can I just say this thread has turned absolutely wild, with all sort of nonsense flying around.

1) TPE won't be merging with Northern - something which would create even more issues and solve absolutely nothing.
2) TRU is happening. To suggest it's not needed because of the ongoing TPE issues is absolutely bonkers.
3) Emergency timetables aren't the silver bullet some seem to think they are. See DfT requirements and political stakeholder reactions.

In the short term the option for TPE is either 1) Contract extension with First Group but with significant change at the top and caveats on performance or 2) Operator of Last Resort.

Either of those won't resolve the fundamental issues and causes of TPE's problems. Which has been a combination, IMO, of DfT being useless and woeful senior leadership at TPE.

This thread is speculative so we tend to run wild here, the suggestion was only that TPE would be better off merged into different operators since that allows to eliminate TPE management and dissolve the whole operation.

The argument has gone on and on and on about whether emergency timetables would be a short term solution and I don't intend to string along that argument because it goes nowehere.
Agree with your conclusion however, DfT = useless and TPE management = woeful.

 

[L+Y]

For those with more knowledge than me- is RDW really the root of the TPE issues? If an RDW agreement was signed, would problems be eliminated, or merely somewhat reduced?

And just how generous were the previous terms, and what's been offered since?

Just reposting these queries, as I think they got lost at the bottom of the previous page!

 

[Msq71423]

Here's something simple that may solve TPEs problems, quickly. Basically, the DfT need to allow TPE to offer the drivers the RDW payments they are asking for. I'm sure in a fantasy world this would solve many of their problems!

 

[skyhigh]

Here's something simple that may solve TPEs problems, quickly. Basically, the DfT need to allow TPE to offer the drivers the RDW payments they are asking for. I'm sure in a fantasy world this would solve many of their problems!

Except ASLEF's policy is to not sign any RDW agreements when they're in dispute with the company. So you'd need to settle the industrial dispute first...

 

[WAB]

They would be totally inappropriate for them as although they don't need high diesel speeds, they do need 125mph operation on electric, and such a bi-mode locomotive doesn't exist.

...yet...

They might be quite tempting around 2027 if Beacon Rail were to make mk 5A + a new 125-capable bimodal locomotive available to them at a cost lower than and a shorter lead time than 10 80xs.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Rumours going around that TPE and Northern could emerge together and become a "Super TOC". Would this be a good/bad idea?

 

[yorksrob]

Rumours going around that TPE and Northern could emerge together and become a "Super TOC". Would this be a good/bad idea?

I think if you combined Northern from now, and TPE from about two and a half years ago (when they had the new rolling stock, but before they went down the pan) it could be pretty good.

 

[javelin]

Rumours going around that TPE and Northern could emerge together and become a "Super TOC". Would this be a good/bad idea?

Depends, what problem would this solve?

 

[LittleAH]

Rumours going around that TPE and Northern could emerge together and become a "Super TOC". Would this be a good/bad idea?

There’s no rumours. It’s what the metro mayors are branding about. With no conceivable suggestions on how it would work.

Suspect we will find out in the next few weeks what will happen. The two most obvious outcomes are 1) OLR 2) Short term extension to the contract and a few directors get binned off.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Depends, what problem would this solve?

Not really sure to be honest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

There’s no rumours. It’s what the metro mayors are branding about. With no conceivable suggestions on how it would work.

Suspect we will find out in the next few weeks what will happen. The two most obvious outcomes are 1) OLR 2) Short term extension to the contract and a few directors get binned off.

Probably OLR would be a better option than a contract extension. Might make things slightly better than having to cancel more services.

 

[mike57]

Probably OLR would be a better option than a contract extension. Might make things slightly better than having to cancel more services.

If that means that a deliverable timetable is introduced then I agree. As a passenger I cannot currently plan a trip two or three days ahead, and that means I cant use the train, even although for the majority of my journeys it should be the logical option.

A new emergency timetable may end up being half what it should be, but at least if that half runs then I stand a chance, I can time my journey to complete my business. The current lottery with cancellations at random upto 10pm the day before just cant work for me, and I suspect a lot of others.

Why TPE couldn't take the Avanti approach and cut the timetable to something they can deliver with current resources just doesn't make sense. That should also mean that all routes can have 5/6 cars on all services.

It would be interesting to know how much TPE usage is compared to pre covid, I suspect its well down on other operators

The cynic in me would say that the DfT have sat and watched the chaos at TPE and rubbed their hands with glee, reduced passenger numbers means they will be able justify putting all the Leeds Manchester improvements on hold bar those started.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

If that means that a deliverable timetable is introduced then I agree. As a passenger I cannot currently plan a trip two or three days ahead, and that means I cant use the train, even although for the majority of my journeys it should be the logical option.

A new emergency timetable may end up being half what it should be, but at least if that half runs then I stand a chance, I can time my journey to complete my business. The current lottery with cancellations at random upto 10pm the day before just cant work for me, and I suspect a lot of others.

Why TPE couldn't take the Avanti approach and cut the timetable to something they can deliver with current resources just doesn't make sense. That should also mean that all routes can have 5/6 cars on all services.

It would be interesting to know how much TPE usage is compared to pre covid, I suspect its well down on other operators

The cynic in me would say that the DfT have sat and watched the chaos at TPE and rubbed their hands with glee, reduced passenger numbers means they will be able justify putting all the Leeds Manchester improvements on hold bar those started.

Have to wait and see to be honest. It's not a good look really but it is what it is at the end of the day unfortunately. Embarrassing for TPE.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Have to wait and see to be honest. It's not a good look really but it is what it is at the end of the day unfortunately. Embarrassing for TPE.

Contender for understatement of the year that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TPE seems to be the proverbial nettle that no-one wants to grasp.

 

[Mollman]

A number of notices have appeared on a tendering site a visit (sorry can't link) in relation to extension of various rolling stock related contracts which state for example:

In preparation for an award of a National Rail Contract from the Department for Transport to Transpennine Express Limited (operated by First Group), it is intended to extend the rolling stock lease with Angel Trains Limited for the fleets of trains currently under lease with Angel Trains Limited. The leases are expected to be extended in accordance with paragraph II.2.4 below.
The Contracting Authority will observe a 10 day standstill period from the date of issue of this notice prior to entering into the lease extensions with Angel Trains Limited...

II.2.4) Description of the procurement
The Contracting Authority intends to extend the rolling stock lease in accordance with Regulation 50(1)(c)(ii) of the Utilities Contract Regulations 2016 for technical reasons. This is because there is no other UK based fleets available in sufficient quantities or within the requisite timeframe to meet TPE's needs for the National Rail Contract.
TPE intend to award a lease extension with Angel Trains Limited for the Class 802 rolling stock. The current lease expires in May 2023 and it is intended to extend the lease until May 2028 with a further 4 year option until May 2031 or an option to extend the lease from May 2023 to May 2031.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A number of notices have appeared on a tendering site a visit (sorry can't link) in relation to extension of various rolling stock related contracts which state for example:

In preparation for an award of a National Rail Contract from the Department for Transport to Transpennine Express Limited (operated by First Group), it is intended to extend the rolling stock lease with Angel Trains Limited for the fleets of trains currently under lease with Angel Trains Limited. The leases are expected to be extended in accordance with paragraph II.2.4 below.
The Contracting Authority will observe a 10 day standstill period from the date of issue of this notice prior to entering into the lease extensions with Angel Trains Limited...

II.2.4) Description of the procurement
The Contracting Authority intends to extend the rolling stock lease in accordance with Regulation 50(1)(c)(ii) of the Utilities Contract Regulations 2016 for technical reasons. This is because there is no other UK based fleets available in sufficient quantities or within the requisite timeframe to meet TPE's needs for the National Rail Contract.
TPE intend to award a lease extension with Angel Trains Limited for the Class 802 rolling stock. The current lease expires in May 2023 and it is intended to extend the lease until May 2028 with a further 4 year option until May 2031 or an option to extend the lease from May 2023 to May 2031.

I am guessing the year 2028 (my bold) is meant to be 2027 ?. That would be four years plus four years to 2031.

 

[Snow1964]

I guess the future of TPE will be announced in next few days

Some sort of PR spin version of we know you have been terrible, don't employ enough trained staff to work your schedule, but we are unlikely to win any votes in north, so giving current operator an extension with vague target of try and do better.

 

[Brubulus]

I guess the future of TPE will be announced in next few days

Some sort of PR spin version of we know you have been terrible, don't employ enough trained staff to work your schedule, but we are unlikely to win any votes in north, so giving current operator an extension with vague target of try and do better.

I have a feeling it's going to be OLR with a franchise reorganisation for the North announced but kicked into the long grass with GBR.
The 802 routes and Newcastle on Northern should go to LNER, some of the Sheffield routes and the 170s should go to EMR while the 397s go to AWC. Once all that's been stripped away, Northern then splits into a dedicated fleet in Merseyrail livery for the City line, a fleet in GM livery for GM services while there would also be a WY local fleet. Then there would be the resurrection of Northern Connect and the bland Northern would stay for rural services though this is all a bit crayonista.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I have a feeling it's going to be OLR with a franchise reorganisation for the North announced but kicked into the long grass with GBR.
The 802 routes and Newcastle on Northern should go to LNER, some of the Sheffield routes and the 170s should go to EMR while the 397s go to AWC. Once all that's been stripped away, Northern then splits into a dedicated fleet in Merseyrail livery for the City line, a fleet in GM livery for GM services while there would also be a WY local fleet. Then there would be the resurrection of Northern Connect and the bland Northern would stay for rural services though this is all a bit crayonista.

I think it’s been said a few times OLR doesn’t want to tarnish its reputation with something it feels it’s unable to improve.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think it’s been said a few times OLR doesn’t want to tarnish its reputation with something it feels it’s unable to improve.

Does OLR have a reputation with people outside the industry or enthusiasts?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Does OLR have a reputation with people outside the industry or enthusiasts?

No, and it isn't the place of an operator of last resort to pick and choose which TOCs it operates. I'm puzzled what people think operator of last resort means and why they think only the top, most efficient TOCs would be operated by it.

 

[Efini92]

I have a feeling it's going to be OLR with a franchise reorganisation for the North announced but kicked into the long grass with GBR.
The 802 routes and Newcastle on Northern should go to LNER, some of the Sheffield routes and the 170s should go to EMR while the 397s go to AWC. Once all that's been stripped away, Northern then splits into a dedicated fleet in Merseyrail livery for the City line, a fleet in GM livery for GM services while there would also be a WY local fleet. Then there would be the resurrection of Northern Connect and the bland Northern would stay for rural services though this is all a bit crayonista.

The 397’s should go back to Spain.

 

[Energy]

I think it’s been said a few times OLR doesn’t want to tarnish its reputation with something it feels it’s unable to improve.

Its more that the OLR will struggle to take on any more operations. Northern wasn't in good shape when it was taken over, SouthEastern didn't seem that bad so its interesting that it was decided to take it over rather than fining Govia.

 

[sprinterguy]

I have a feeling it's going to be OLR with a franchise reorganisation for the North announced but kicked into the long grass with GBR.
The 802 routes and Newcastle on Northern should go to LNER, some of the Sheffield routes and the 170s should go to EMR while the 397s go to AWC. Once all that's been stripped away, Northern then splits into a dedicated fleet in Merseyrail livery for the City line, a fleet in GM livery for GM services while there would also be a WY local fleet. Then there would be the resurrection of Northern Connect and the bland Northern would stay for rural services though this is all a bit crayonista.

Sounds like reorganisation for nothing better than reorganisation's sake, guaranteed to cause additional disruption in the medium term even compared to the status quo.

The 397’s should go back to Spain.

To be replaced by what? I sure as heck don't want to see the dark days of single 185s being stretched to cover North West - Scotland services again. A dedicated fleet of route-appropriate electric units is the greatest benefit the burgeoning corridor has gained in thirty years.

Granted there's an additional two 'intercity' fleets available now that it might be possible to juggle, but I wouldn't want to see the booked return of single 185s to key long distance Transpennine services, either.

 

[Some guy]

cross country should take over the services it would mean direct services from reading, Southampton and Bournemouth to Glasgow and Edinburgh for the sake of sacrificing Manchester airport stop but still serving Piccadilly

 

[waverley47]

cross country should take over the services it would mean direct services from reading, Southampton and Bournemouth to Glasgow and Edinburgh for the sake of sacrificing Manchester airport stop but still serving Piccadilly

What stock? There aren't enough voyagers and there aren't enough other 125 mph bimode/diesel units, of you could even get DfT to pay for them.

Timekeeping would be atrocious. Pathing long distance services through Piccadilly 13/14 is idiotic, and you'd end up importing delays from the Glasgow suburban network, through the northern WCML, Castlefield Corridor and Birmingham New Street into third rail land, and vice versa.

Sacrificing timetable integrity and train capacity for the sake of direct trains between Carlisle and Bournemouth is not the best idea.