Future of TPE

[Bantamzen]

Is this not the time to draw up a new timetable that will allow service provision that will not require drivers to need to work overtime, even though this will mean reduced train services which can normally be expected to be relied on?

That depends on what is meant by a timetable that can be relied upon. If it is one that doesn't deliver the capacity required, then its going to struggle as delays get baked in as crews struggle to get punters onboard. I can remember the days of fewer TPE services run with 3 car 185s, and it was a nightmare. Unlike many other routes, the North TransPennine is almost exclusively run by TPE leaving few, if any alternatives (those being the bus or car). Reducing timetables to the point that they will in theory work is not going to be a lot of good if in reality it take ten minutes to dispatch from P16 at Leeds as the punters fight over the only train in that hour.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That depends on what is meant by a timetable that can be relied upon. If it is one that doesn't deliver the capacity required, then its going to struggle as delays get baked in as crews struggle to get punters onboard. I can remember the days of fewer TPE services run with 3 car 185s, and it was a nightmare. Unlike many other routes, the North TransPennine is almost exclusively run by TPE leaving few, if any alternatives (those being the bus or car). Reducing timetables to the point that they will in theory work is not going to be a lot of good if in reality it take ten minutes to dispatch from P16 at Leeds as the punters fight over the only train in that hour.

It only needs one driver to drive a 6-car set.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EMR already operate the other fast trains from Sheffield to Liverpool and are the other TOC serving Cleethorpes/Grimsby, so why is it "off their patch" to operate the Liverpool-Sheffield-Cleethorpes service?

Operating those from further east does have its problems, it's never been optimal and I've long supported moving those to TPE.

 

[Pub]

Just looked in my old 1974 timetable, the basic core express service from manchester vic to Leeds was hourly. maybe a step back before trying two steps forward. Concentrate on the core Manchester to Leeds section first leave the rest to others, LNER Cross Country Northern (yes I know they have their own problems) but now they are under the same control OLR, maybe scope to work togrther (alright i know pigs might fly)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What will the future hold for those TPE services that start and end at Manchester Airport at present?

 

[Bantamzen]

What will the future hold for those TPE services that start an d end at Manchester Airport at present?

Well Manchester Airport are aiming to develop their market by almost double, so I imagine any future operator will want to tap into the market delivering punters to their doors.

 

[Bartsimho]

How about a bit of a route simplification as well?

Southern Route: Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Sheffield, Rotherham Central, Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Grimsby Town, Cleethorpes
Scottish/West Coast Route: Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Bolton, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow Central.
Eastern Route: Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

A fair bit of Manchester Airport traffic should either be on Northern for Semi-Fast or Stoppers into Manchester and onwards to Liverpool or south to Crewe and then Stoke.

It is meant to be express so it should only run Fast or Semi-Fast services with the Fast services being the Nova 1, Nova 2 and Nova 3's while the Semi-Fasts are run by the Class 185's

 

[WatcherZero]

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: 11 May 2023 ==


That is of course inevitably a South of England perspective. For most of the country the choice is based on which side of the UK you live on,

Its an interesting question, they cover the largest geographic scope (about 25% of England) and have by far the largest number of stations (465+19 to other operators average 180 with the next two biggest being Scotrail on 355 and Thameslink on 235) and have the highest staff counts (6,850 Northern + 1,500 TPE, 6,250 GWR, 7,400 Thameslink, 4,925 Scotrail, 4,550 Southeastern, rest roughly in the range of 1,800-3,000). However in terms of revenue and passengers they are firmly upper mid table. So they have more to manage but with only average financial resources to do so. Combining them doesnt particularly add any geographic scope as their networks almost completely overlap while at the same time offering substantial opportunity for efficiency savings.

£Millions	Chiltern	Cross Country	East Anglia	East Coast (LNER)	East Midlands	Essex Thameside (c2c)	Great Western	London Overground	Merseyrail	Northern	ScotRail	South Eastern	South Western	TfL Rail	Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (GTR)	TransPennine Express	Wales and Borders (TfW Rail)	West Coast	West Midlands
Operating Cost	189	533	547	752	462	176	1,360	360	164	930	960	1,080	918	446	1,684	390	392	956	637
Operating Revenue	128	279	336	510	261	106	694	191	63	310	199	522	548	138	963	135	110	625	289
Net after tax and borrowing costs before subsidy	-62	-255	-221	-245	-203	-68	-671	-170	-103	-628	-767	-603	-377	-309	-732	-256	-277	-333	-327
Subsidy as a proportion of operating costs	33.3%	48.6%	40.8%	33%	39%	45%	51.3%	48.6%	66.5%	68.4%	79.3%	51.9%	42.2%	70.2%	42.2%	70.2%	71.7%	35.9%	52.3%
TOC company Profit/Dividends to shareholders	1/0	4/0	2/0	3/0	5/20	1/0	26/33	5/0	6/0	8/0	-7/0	-43/30	9/13	4/13	39/0	-1/0	4/0	10/12	6/0

Table 7223 – Franchised Passenger Train Operator Finances by Franchise(latest year) | ORR Data Portal

 

[PTR 444]

I think TPE and Northern should merge into a single identity (they are both after all going to be run by the same government), but with each city’s local services shoehorned off to a locally managed concession with respective branding. GM Rail for Manchester, Merseytravel for Liverpool (City Line), WYPTE for Leeds and Nexus for Newcastle. That leaves the remaining Northern/TPE network as mostly interurban services.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What are the TPEX problems that this thread could solve by reorganising TPEX? I mean, the Scottish services could easily go to Avanti, but for the main Manchester to Leeds route, it's less obvious which operator it could become a part of. It's part of the reason why I like the idea of HS3.

 

[YorksLad12]

No there’s so much anti-Northern rhetoric on here it’s almost laughable. You only have to look at some people have a problem with how Northern have clamped down on fare evasion reducing it by over £1m in the last year alone to realise that (‘too many penalty fare officers at Leeds which I find intimidating even though I don’t need to go anywhere near them’, ‘too many LPO’s checking tickets at outstations meaning it takes 10 seconds longer to leave the platform whilst it’s checked’, ‘I actually get asked to show my railcard now’, ‘too many on train checks now and sometimes have to show it twice on a journey when they change crew’).

These are all things I’ve read on here in recent times and yet they’re probably the same people who complain about fare evasion. If it was a London commuter operator it would be congratulated no doubt.

Yup.

 

[Jonny]

How about a bit of a route simplification as well?

Southern Route: Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Sheffield, Rotherham Central, Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Grimsby Town, Cleethorpes
Scottish/West Coast Route: Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Bolton, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow Central.
Eastern Route: Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

A fair bit of Manchester Airport traffic should either be on Northern for Semi-Fast or Stoppers into Manchester and onwards to Liverpool or south to Crewe and then Stoke.

It is meant to be express so it should only run Fast or Semi-Fast services with the Fast services being the Nova 1, Nova 2 and Nova 3's while the Semi-Fasts are run by the Class 185's

Bearing in mind that TPE picks up the intermediate stations on a lot of those routes, what would you do then?

 

[Bartsimho]

Bearing in mind that TPE picks up the intermediate stations on a lot of those routes, what would you do then?

The intermediates should be done by Northern. Intermediate stops don't lend themselves to Express services. Maybe they could be justified in a "Core Area" if it then runs fast to a destination.

 

[Jonny]

The intermediates should be done by Northern. Intermediate stops don't lend themselves to Express services. Maybe they could be justified in a "Core Area" if it then runs fast to a destination.

Bear in mind that Northern run few to no services on some parts of those, don't have enough spare stock, and some intermediate on the ECML need to be done with the Nova 1s to keep time.

 

[Bantamzen]

Bear in mind that Northern run few to no services on some parts of those, don't have enough spare stock, and some intermediate on the ECML need to be done with the Nova 1s to keep time.

Indeed, if they were to take on the intermediates they will need extra stock / crews, or risk pinching from elsewhere at a time when some routes are seeing cuts already.

Just thinking about the larger picture, I'm not sure I fully understand the objections to there being one overall operator for the Northern / TPE operators. At this time it seems more logical to do than to carve up TPE routes amongst multiple TOCs. The different operations could still be branded separately, just run under the same company. And whilst I'd be loath to give local regions any sort of control on operations in their own areas, having Transport for the North overseeing the larger operation would still allow them their inputs. It might even in time be able to resolve some of the chronic staffing issues by levelling up pay across the group and maybe slowing the attrition rate, and then re-assign some routes to the brand better suited to them.

 

[urbophile]

And whilst I'd be loath to give local regions any sort of control on operations in their own areas,

Why?

 

[Bantamzen]

Why?

Because each region will concentrate on their own, and may not look at the wider needs of the operation. It could just end up being a constant struggle between the major authorities of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire & South Yorkshire, with the rest picking over what bones are left. A northern based operator needs an overseeing authority that speaks for all, not just the loudest. At TfN level, each area can state their case for what they would like, and then an overall consensus be delivered that brings benefits for all areas served.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Its an interesting question, they cover the largest geographic scope (about 25% of England) and have by far the largest number of stations (465+19 to other operators average 180 with the next two biggest being Scotrail on 355 and Thameslink on 235) and have the highest staff counts (6,850 Northern + 1,500 TPE, 6,250 GWR, 7,400 Thameslink, 4,925 Scotrail, 4,550 Southeastern, rest roughly in the range of 1,800-3,000). However in terms of revenue and passengers they are firmly upper mid table. So they have more to manage but with only average financial resources to do so. Combining them doesnt particularly add any geographic scope as their networks almost completely overlap while at the same time offering substantial opportunity for efficiency savings.

£Millions	Chiltern	Cross Country	East Anglia	East Coast (LNER)	East Midlands	Essex Thameside (c2c)	Great Western	London Overground	Merseyrail	Northern	ScotRail	South Eastern	South Western	TfL Rail	Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (GTR)	TransPennine Express	Wales and Borders (TfW Rail)	West Coast	West Midlands
Operating Cost	189	533	547	752	462	176	1,360	360	164	930	960	1,080	918	446	1,684	390	392	956	637
Operating Revenue	128	279	336	510	261	106	694	191	63	310	199	522	548	138	963	135	110	625	289
Net after tax and borrowing costs before subsidy	-62	-255	-221	-245	-203	-68	-671	-170	-103	-628	-767	-603	-377	-309	-732	-256	-277	-333	-327
Subsidy as a proportion of operating costs	33.3%	48.6%	40.8%	33%	39%	45%	51.3%	48.6%	66.5%	68.4%	79.3%	51.9%	42.2%	70.2%	42.2%	70.2%	71.7%	35.9%	52.3%
TOC company Profit/Dividends to shareholders	1/0	4/0	2/0	3/0	5/20	1/0	26/33	5/0	6/0	8/0	-7/0	-43/30	9/13	4/13	39/0	-1/0	4/0	10/12	6/0

Table 7223 – Franchised Passenger Train Operator Finances by Franchise(latest year) | ORR Data Portal

Thanks for that table.

My eye was drawn to the row indicating subsidy as a proportion of operating costs.

So Northern and TPE are among the most expensive subsidy wise and require twice as much subsidy as the cheapest to subsidise TOCs. That is a big difference. Even the lowest subsidy is 33.3% for Chiltern - a small TOC. So are large TOCs a good idea ?.

So should the effort go into making TPE and Northern more efficient ?. Possibly but not to achieve the same subsidy level as the big London suburban TOCs as they have frequent services and long (10 or 12 coach) trains so will have an economy of scale.

Or is it that the fares per passenger mile are cheaper on TPE and Northern than other TOCs - that would lead to a higher subsidy. Then the argument would be - is it fair that 80% of the population subsidise some thing used by only 20% of the population ?. Well there must be economic benefits otherwise state support would have ceased back in the 60s before ecology became a thing. Now for the railways to get a subsidy because of ecology they need to shift a significant amount of passengers and freight compered to road & air. Otherwise the railways are letting us tax payers down.

I really think it depends on what is convenient geographically. So Northern and TPE overlap quite a lot. But then again XC (Cross Country threads its way through all sorts of other TOCs areas. So I am tending towards the more express parts of TPE belonging with XC with the slower stuff going to Northern. Because XC is not London centric and goes over other TOCs areas this makes sense to have a management prepared to cope with the complexities of managing it. Should we see XC as "Other Intercity" - as in not from the London terminals. That would then raise its profile so it is not just lost in the "wilds".

But tinkering with who runs what is not going to be the magic wand that solves the chronic driver shortage. Furthermore relying heavily on rest day working (or any other kind of overtime) is crazy. Merging parts of TPE with other TOCs risks just dragging other TOCs down.

The first task for OLR should be getting a reliable timetable going and running fewer longer trains - not a 3car 185 substituting for a 5-6 car train.

 

[Trainbike46]

Thanks for that table.

My eye was drawn to the row indicating subsidy as a proportion of operating costs.

So Northern and TPE are among the most expensive subsidy wise and require twice as much subsidy as the cheapest to subsidise TOCs. That is a big difference. Even the lowest subsidy is 33.3% for Chiltern - a small TOC. So are large TOCs a good idea ?.

So should the effort go into making TPE and Northern more efficient ?. Possibly but not to achieve the same subsidy level as the big London suburban TOCs as they have frequent services and long (10 or 12 coach) trains so will have an economy of scale.

Or is it that the fares per passenger mile are cheaper on TPE and Northern than other TOCs - that would lead to a higher subsidy. Then the argument would be - is it fair that 80% of the population subsidise some thing used by only 20% of the population ?. Well there must be economic benefits otherwise state support would have ceased back in the 60s before ecology became a thing. Now for the railways to get a subsidy because of ecology they need to shift a significant amount of passengers and freight then road & air do. Otherwise the railways are letting us tax payers down.

I really think it depends on what is convenient geographically. So Northern and TPE overlap quite a lot. But then again XC (Cross Country threads its way through all sorts of other TOCs areas. So I am tending towards the more express parts of TPE belonging with XC with the slower stuff going to Northern. Because XC is not London centric is makes sense to see it as "Other Intercity" - as in not from the London terminals.

But tinkering with who runs what is not going to be the magic wand that solves the chronic driver shortage. Furthermore relying heavily on rest day working (or any other kind of overtime) is crazy. Merging parts of TPE with other TOCs risks just dragging other TOCs down.

It's important to note that the latest year this table refers to is 2021-2022, when there were still covid restrictions around. For most TOCs, the subsidies are a lot larger than they will have been for 2022-2023.

I also would caution against making conclusion on relative subsidy levels between TOCs, as not all types of travel and all regions will have been impacted the same way due to differing restrictions and differences in people's situation and behaviour

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Noting the earlier comment made in a posting that Northern take over the "slower" parts of TPE, it is worth remembering that TPE lost its Blackpool route to Northern quite some time ago.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It's important to note that the latest year this table refers to is 2021-2022, when there were still covid restrictions around. For most TOCs, the subsidies are a lot larger than they will have been for 2022-2023.

I also would caution against making conclusion on relative subsidy levels between TOCs, as not all types of travel and all regions will have been impacted the same way due to differing restrictions and differences in people's situation and behaviour

Given the three South London TOCs seemed to have lost passengers to home working, particularly South Western Railway. I wonder how they are doing now ?.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thanks for that table.

My eye was drawn to the row indicating subsidy as a proportion of operating costs.

So Northern and TPE are among the most expensive subsidy wise and require twice as much subsidy as the cheapest to subsidise TOCs. That is a big difference. Even the lowest subsidy is 33.3% for Chiltern - a small TOC. So are large TOCs a good idea ?.

So should the effort go into making TPE and Northern more efficient ?. Possibly but not to achieve the same subsidy level as the big London suburban TOCs as they have frequent services and long (10 or 12 coach) trains so will have an economy of scale.

Or is it that the fares per passenger mile are cheaper on TPE and Northern than other TOCs - that would lead to a higher subsidy. Then the argument would be - is it fair that 80% of the population subsidise some thing used by only 20% of the population ?. Well there must be economic benefits otherwise state support would have ceased back in the 60s before ecology became a thing. Now for the railways to get a subsidy because of ecology they need to shift a significant amount of passengers and freight compered to road & air. Otherwise the railways are letting us tax payers down.

I really think it depends on what is convenient geographically. So Northern and TPE overlap quite a lot. But then again XC (Cross Country threads its way through all sorts of other TOCs areas. So I am tending towards the more express parts of TPE belonging with XC with the slower stuff going to Northern. Because XC is not London centric and goes over other TOCs areas this makes sense to have a management prepared to cope with the complexities of managing it. Should we see XC as "Other Intercity" - as in not from the London terminals. That would then raise its profile so it is not just lost in the "wilds".

But tinkering with who runs what is not going to be the magic wand that solves the chronic driver shortage. Furthermore relying heavily on rest day working (or any other kind of overtime) is crazy. Merging parts of TPE with other TOCs risks just dragging other TOCs down.

The first task for OLR should be getting a reliable timetable going and running fewer longer trains - not a 3car 185 substituting for a 5-6 car train.

I think the bit your missing was what I was trying to illustrate in the comments, the amount of infrastructure on the network they are responsible for supporting. Take a look at those low upkeep franchises; Chiltern calls at 66 stations but only is responsible for the upkeep of 32, West coast calls at 46 but only manages 16, East Coast calls at 53 but only supports 12, Thameslink calls at 28 and supports 26 and has only 125 route miles.

 

[Trainbike46]

Thameslink calls at 28 and supports 26.

Surely GTR calls at and manages way more stations than that?

 

[WatcherZero]

Surely GTR calls at and manages way more stations than that?

Essex Thameside is now called C2C but confusingly yes two rail franchises that call themselves Thames.

 

[Trainbike46]

Essex Thameside is now called C2C but confusingly yes two rail franchises that call themselves Thames.

C2C / Essex Thameside makes a lot more sense than TSGN / GTR in that context yes!

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think the bit your missing was what I was trying to illustrate in the comments, the amount of infrastructure on the network they are responsible for supporting. Take a look at those low upkeep franchises; Chiltern calls at 66 stations but only is responsible for the upkeep of 32, West coast calls at 46 but only manages 16, East Coast calls at 53 but only supports 12, Thameslink calls at 28 and supports 26 and has only 125 route miles.

Ah, of course.

That makes me feel Chiltern should be part of GWR as I assume the stations Chiltern calls at but does not have to look after are mainly GWR. Of course it could be the Birmingham end that is more deserving ?.

I assume the three TOCs South of the Thames have to support 100% of their stations ?.

For TPE and Northern the number of stations shared must be a significant part of stations served by TPE with a lot being Northern only. So, as you say, Northern have a lot of overheads.

It does illustrate a fact I think many overlook that Northern is quite a substantial TOC. If the Pennines were a bit more impenetrable I think Northern would be split. I do sometimes think it is dangerously viewed as a TOC formed of just "the rest of England" - but then England does get thinner populated the further north we go beyond Lancashire and Yorkshire. I know I am ignoring Lincolnshire btw.

In another parallel world the Intercity and Cross country TOCs would have no stations to support - hard to think of any that are not shared with a more local operator so maybe they should be charged something for use instead. I am not necessarily advocating that. Still I suppose it means we have an integrated transport policy in as much as the Intercity TOCs use the same stations as more local trains !.

I think the case for altering the scope/size of TPE leads to all sorts of questions about other TOCs and grouping thereof. What do we want a TOC to be ?. What problems does each TOC have and what problems does merging/splitting solve ?.

Most of that is brainstorming - just provoking thought.

 

[urbophile]

Because each region will concentrate on their own, and may not look at the wider needs of the operation. It could just end up being a constant struggle between the major authorities of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire & South Yorkshire, with the rest picking over what bones are left. A northern based operator needs an overseeing authority that speaks for all, not just the loudest. At TfN level, each area can state their case for what they would like, and then an overall consensus be delivered that brings benefits for all areas served.

I take your point. I suppose I'm looking it from a Merseyside perspective, where Merseyrail (except the Northern-operated City lines) is a stand-alone operation which doesn't affect regional and long distance services. Other cities are less fortunate, but they ought to be able to have a wish-list as you suggest.

 

[Bartsimho]

Ah, of course.

That makes me feel Chiltern should be part of GWR as I assume the stations Chiltern calls at but does not have to look after are mainly GWR. Of course it could be the Birmingham end that is more deserving ?.

I assume the three TOCs South of the Thames have to support 100% of their stations ?.

For TPE and Northern the number of stations shared must be a significant part of stations served by TPE with a lot being Northern only. So, as you say, Northern have a lot of overheads.

It does illustrate a fact I think many overlook that Northern is quite a substantial TOC. If the Pennines were a bit more impenetrable I think Northern would be split. I do sometimes think it is dangerously viewed as a TOC formed of just "the rest of England" - but then England does get thinner populated the further north we go beyond Lancashire and Yorkshire. I know I am ignoring Lincolnshire btw.

In another parallel world the Intercity and Cross country TOCs would have no stations to support - hard to think of any that are not shared with a more local operator so maybe they should be charged something for use instead. I am not necessarily advocating that. Still I suppose it means we have an integrated transport policy in as much as the Intercity TOCs use the same stations as more local trains !.

I think the case for altering the scope/size of TPE leads to all sorts of questions about other TOCs and grouping thereof. What do we want a TOC to be ?. What problems does each TOC have and what problems does merging/splitting solve ?.

Most of that is brainstorming - just provoking thought.

I think with the station costs and overheads that them being centrally managed with TOCs paying a fee to use them (either defined in their franchise agreement or as part of a national document) could be useful as you might be able to use central Economies of scale to reduce cost per station while still making money off them.

 

[Mag_seven]

A reminder that this thread is about the future of TPE. If anyone wants to discuss any other TOC then they are welcome to start a new thread on it.

thanks all

 

[RollingStock19]

Tpe needs getting rid of asap

Well thats just a bit of a silly thing to say isnt it?! there a few hundred people who work there might have something to say about this, along with the 1,000s who use their service every day.