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!
Partly the reason VXC's route VT2 was hived off and became part of TPE, initially by splitting the bournemouth-Scotlands via Manchester at Piccadilly but it was found to be impractical to start services on the branch (Plats 13 & 14 at Piccadilly) hence the extension to Airport and transfer to TPE as it fitted in nicely with the former 175 operated First Northwestern services to Blackpool and Barrow which were also part of TPE
No. The stock that TPE should dispose of are the class 68 locos and Mk 5 carriages. Like the class 67 locos and Mk 4 carriages on TfW, they are problematic. It would be better, simpler and more cost-effective if there were no regular loco-hauled passenger trains on the entire British railway network (heritage lines and nostalgic charters aside).
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
Plymouth via Bristol to Glasgow would make more sense than Bournemouth, and provide direct links between South west and North west, which Bournemouth line already has with its existing Manchester service.
Plymouth via Bristol to Glasgow would make more sense than Bournemouth, and provide direct links between South west and North west, which Bournemouth line already has with its existing Manchester service.
XC should not be taking over any services from TPE, other than possibly the TPE short workings from Edinburgh to Newcastle could be removed with the stops added to existing XC services between these 2 points.
Admittedly off topic, running direct services from SW/Southern England to NW England and beyond via Birmingham is problematic due to time-keeping issues and the requirement for bi-modes if there isn't going to be extensive diesel "running under the wires". IMO, XC services should not be running to NW England or via the WCML at all.
Judging by the number sat about doing nothing no one would notice. Whilst they are still cramming everyone on to an inadequate 3 car 185 between Leeds and Manchester.
Judging by the number sat about doing nothing no one would notice. Whilst they are still cramming everyone on to an inadequate 3 car 185 between Leeds and Manchester.
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.
DfT knows the problems can't be solved any quicker by OLR, also TPE has proposed solutions which DfT has declined. This opens a whole issue up if the things DfT has been saying no to for months they suddenly say yes to under OLR.
Not a couple of weeks ago when I returned from Manchester. Arrived into Manchester as a 6 car unit, 3 of which were detached before the return journey towards Scarborough.
No. The stock that TPE should dispose of are the class 68 locos and Mk 5 carriages. Like the class 67 locos and Mk 4 carriages on TfW, they are problematic. It would be better, simpler and more cost-effective if there were no regular loco-hauled passenger trains on the entire British railway network (heritage lines and nostalgic charters aside).
I agree the mk5 coaches should also go back to Spain. I don’t think there’s any problems with the 68’s, DRS run them up and down the country with no issues.
Who would it be more cost effective for? Surely a coach is cheaper to build and maintain?
Did a venture on TPE a couple of weeks ago and at Leeds and York the situation seemed to have improved, only one cancellation in the whole day, though the south TPE had a few. A few too many 3 car 185s rather than 6 but it's better than no train at all. I think the MD didn't want to overpromise anything a couple of months back when he said the situation would not improve any time soon.
XC should not be taking over any services from TPE, other than possibly the TPE short workings from Edinburgh to Newcastle could be removed with the stops added to existing XC services between these 2 points.
Admittedly off topic, running direct services from SW/Southern England to NW England and beyond via Birmingham is problematic due to time-keeping issues and the requirement for bi-modes if there isn't going to be extensive diesel "running under the wires". IMO, XC services should not be running to NW England or via the WCML at all.
But this attitude is typical of " the railway runs for its own convenience, not that of passengers". XCs raisen d'etre is to move people between Britain's large towns and cities, many of which lie in the North west. Why should the north west be stuck with only having connections within the north west or too the Midlands and London. Plenty of people travel from NW to SW and vice versa, and the lack of direct trains helps prevent further growth.
But this attitude is typical of " the railway runs for its own convenience, not that of passengers". XCs raisen d'etre is to move people between Britain's large towns and cities, many of which lie in the North west. Why should the north west be stuck with only having connections within the north west or too the Midlands and London. Plenty of people travel from NW to SW and vice versa, and the lack of direct trains helps prevent further growth.
But this attitude is typical of " the railway runs for its own convenience, not that of passengers". XCs raisen d'etre is to move people between Britain's large towns and cities, many of which lie in the North west. Why should the north west be stuck with only having connections within the north west or too the Midlands and London. Plenty of people travel from NW to SW and vice versa, and the lack of direct trains helps prevent further growth.
To add to this, why does the north East coast have all these regular connections to Scotland and to the south west and south coast while the north west lacks it?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
By Scotland I mean further north than Edinburgh/Glasgow
And the Caledonian sleeper doesn't count as a regular
To add to this, why does the north East coast have all these regular connections to Scotland and to the south west and south coast while the north west lacks it?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
By Scotland I mean further north than Edinburgh/Glasgow
And the Caledonian sleeper doesn't count as a regular
Firstly, because the northern extensions to LNER aren't about serving flows from Dundee to York. It exists as the primary connection between London and most of Scotland north of the Central Belt.
It gets this by virtue of the ECML being faster and shorter. Its because it is far easier to serve this route as an extension of Edinburgh services, rather than reversing at Glasgow Central or running separate services on a route that wouldn't cover it's costs.
it's because when the WCML was tendered, and new stock was ordered, they went for EMUs that can't be run off the wires without significant interventions. The ECML always had HSTs, and therefore when new stock was tendered, they bought bimodes.
It's because the 'anchor destinations' along the ECML are further north: Edinburgh, Leeds, Teesside and Tyneside, so trains are already running further, and therefore it's easier to extend beyond the final destination.
Manchester and the West Midlands are collectively further south, and have much more economic and social integration with London, when compared to Tyneside and the Central Belt which have always felt a bit distant.
It's because, until relatively recently, the ECML and WCML took just as long to get to Glasgow, meaning investment in the Northern WCML was always lacking.
It's because the northern half of the WCML, beyond Preston, passess through basically nothingness, and so there are fewer services to extend in the first place.
There are very, very many reasons why the ECML is and probably always will be the premier route to the north of Scotland. That being said, there are very significant flows from Yorkshire and the North East to northern Scotland, most commonly to do with engineers and technical workers.
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.
Although may be poor time keeping if they keep the same paths as today they similarly line up and can use the existing TPE path up the WCML so Lockerbie still gets served. The existing Bournemouth service can serve platform 14 and carry on via Bolton
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's because the northern half of the WCML, beyond Preston, passess through basically nothingness, and so there are fewer services to extend in the first place.
That nothingness is one of the biggest tourist attractions of the Lake District national park and connections to Blackpool the North west definitely deserves direct services to the south coast without the need to sit in Birmingham an hour now as of Dec 2022 timetable
In preparation for an award of a National Rail Contract from the Department for Transport to Transpe... A Contract Award Notice by First Transpennine Express.
bidstats.uk
Rather suggests this one slipped through an embargo
This is why I said "wait and see" was the correct way to have followed. The problem these days is that "immediate news on social media" is now the status quo.
With OLR taking on TPE that means OLR now runs much of the railway up north.
Wont the monopolies regulator have something to say about that.
THere again, can OLR merge TPE and Northern to get some synergy savings?
Of course it’s a well known brand! It’s now famous for having a lottery on whether or not trains show up - much like Avanti was, which somehow survived the OLR.
That hasn't always been the case. The WCML was the premier route between the 1974 electrification north of Weaver Junction and the arrival of HSTs on the ECML.
It was in 1974 that the first daytime train to/from Inverness was introduced, running to/from Euston, and there was also a daytime Bristol-Glasgow via the West Coast. The Fort William sleeper was switched from Kings Cross to Euston in 1976.
The wheel could turn again if and when HS2 is completed.
Why is it that the South of England is regarded (rightly in my view) as needing multiple TOCs, partly in order that they don't become too large to manage well, yet it is even considered that one TOC would be suitable for the North of England?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That hasn't always been the case. The WCML was the premier route between the 1974 electrification north of Weaver Junction and the arrival of HSTs on the ECML.
It was in 1974 that the first daytime train to/from Inverness was introduced, running to/from Euston, and there was also a daytime Bristol-Glasgow via the West Coast. The Fort William sleeper was switched from Kings Cross to Euston in 1976.
The wheel could turn again if and when HS2 is completed.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
