Northern and TransPennine Express future

[Bantamzen]

Well, it seems we have one proposition to merge the two together, and one to further split up the local services and turn the current two operators into four. That's two radically different solutions, and I'm not sure exactly what problem we're trying to solve. At least we know there is a problem to be solved, but whether either of these proposals are a solution is another matter...

It seems to me that the problem wasn't ever which large company operated the services, it was how they were being operated. With TPE the crewing arrangements are like a house of cards being built in the inter-car connection of a 142 with severe wheel flats, and until that changes to a more resilient system (and of course the industrial relations improve) I can't see things improving regardless of who operates the service or what colour the crew's uniforms are.

My thinking for bringing the two together in a group (not necessarily into a single company) is that they can start to use shared experience to highlight and manage problems, then in time start to level the two company's pay rates and T&Cs, start to have staff capable of covering across the group, and rationalising routes to better suit each company. It won't be a short term solution, nor will it be easy, but bringing the two into a group might give them chance to share valuable resources and experience to try and turn both around.

Splitting the two down further as suggested will complicate the situation further, and probably result in even more problems as the companies flex against each other. They could of course stay as they are, but frankly they are to all intent and purpose already under the same group. So as they serve the same region and customers, there is probably some sense in formalising this.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wasn’t this hypothetical merger only discussed last month in the “TPE Future” speculation thread? What’s going to be different this month?

 

[Whistler40145]

My thinking for bringing the two together in a group (not necessarily into a single company) is that they can start to use shared experience to highlight and manage problems, then in time start to level the two company's pay rates and T&Cs, start to have staff capable of covering across the group, and rationalising routes to better suit each company. It won't be a short term solution, nor will it be easy, but bringing the two into a group might give them chance to share valuable resources and experience to try and turn both around.

Splitting the two down further as suggested will complicate the situation further, and probably result in even more problems as the companies flex against each other. They could of course stay as they are, but frankly they are to all intent and purpose already under the same group. So as they serve the same region and customers, there is probably some sense in formalising this.

Very sensible thinking

 

[skyhigh]

Like TransPennine Express, Northern was taken back by the Government, so something was wrong

In the background, the DfT are micromanaging everything. It's rumoured that DfT declined First permission to implement an emergency timetable on TPE for example. Changing who manages the company will have little effect if the people who make decisions still remain in the background.

 

[Manutd1999]

I wasn't suggesting that it should be split into 4x TOCs overnight. In the short-term, I completely agree that the focus needs to be on getting the core operation back to some level of acceptable performance, not on re-organisations.

However, just because something can't be done immediately doesn't mean I can't ever happen. The way some people comment on here gives the impression that nothing in the railway can ever change......

My 4x TOC aspiration could be delivered over a 5-10 period:

Next 1-2 years - stabilize operations
Step 2: spin off the North East section, which is mostly self-contained anyway
Step 3: Gradually add the Calder Valley and other regional services to the TPE franchise.
Step 4: Split the remainder of Northern into North-West and West/South Yorkshire

 

[skyhigh]

I wasn't suggesting that it should be split into 4x TOCs overnight. In the short-term, I completely agree that the focus needs to be on getting the core operation back to some level of acceptable performance, not on re-organisations.

However, just because something can't be done immediately doesn't mean I can't ever happen. The way some people comment on here gives the impression that nothing in the railway can ever change......

My 4x TOC aspiration could be delivered over a 5-10 period:

Next 1-2 years - stabilize operations
Step 2: spin off the North East section, which is mostly self-contained anyway
Step 3: Gradually add the Calder Valley and other regional services to the TPE franchise.
Step 4: Split the remainder of Northern into North-West and West/South Yorkshire

But given services are currently interworked by different depots how do you split that up efficiently? For example a single conductor might currently work a Calder Valley, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire route in one shift. Would you have double the number of crew depots to make up for the loss of flexibility?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My thinking for bringing the two together in a group (not necessarily into a single company) is that they can start to use shared experience to highlight and manage problems, then in time start to level the two company's pay rates and T&Cs, start to have staff capable of covering across the group, and rationalising routes to better suit each company. It won't be a short term solution, nor will it be easy, but bringing the two into a group might give them chance to share valuable resources and experience to try and turn both around.

Thing is: if the two parts of this "group" have the same T&Cs for staff, the ability for the staff of one to cover work for the other (and vice-versa), and routes allocated in such a way that they are co-operating rather than competing, you've effectively merged them in all but name.

Ultimately the issue is with the way management have allowed IR to decline to a point that the timetable is unworkable, though it obviously isn't helped by the zombie government we currently have in place with no incentive to sort the problem out. I just don't see that redrawing franchise maps will achieve anything practical, this thread just seems to be various posters drawing new boundaries with no rhyme or reason beyond a personal preference or wish-list.

 

[stevieinselby]

It would be better to break up TPE and pass its longer distance "prestige" services to other operators:

• WCML services from NW England to Scotland - to Avanti WC
• Liverpool to York and NE England (Tyneside/Teesside) - to LNER
• Newcastle to Edinburgh semi-fast services - withdraw but incorporate extra stops within existing XC services between these points
• Liverpool to Cleethorpes - to EMR

I would also transfer the local Northern services from Sheffield to Lincoln and Sheffield to Nottingham to EMR.

The rest should be merged into a single Northern franchise with a totally new management structure. Its remit would be to operate dmus/emus only on basic short/medium-distance services, with no first-class and no on board catering, and operating services essentially only within the northern regions of England. Given the current staffing issues, services should be reduced (at least for now) to what can realistically be operated reliably. However, there should be a focus on ensuring that essentially all local urban stations within 10-15 miles of the major cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and Newcastle-upon-Tyne are provided with a 30 minute frequency 0730-1830 Mon-Sat to encourage rail use in congested urban areas.

Current confidence in railway services in Northern England is at an all time low due to widespread unreliability and short-notice cancellations, and unless the management problems are addressed, the future is grim for local passenger rail services in this region.

I don't know how much value there is in doing this, given that a lot of the problems that TPX have are caused by not having enough staff (and in particular, not having enough staff trained on all the different routes and stock types) – the upheaval caused by fragmenting the operations would be likely to set back the recruitment, retention and training considerably and leave things worse than they are now for quite some time. What would that gain that the OLR can't manage with the current operations?

But if it were to go ahead...

Manchester to Scotland services did used to be run by XCountry, and it never made a whole lot of sense having them transferred to TPX ... although with the line now being fully electrified and XC having no electric or bi-mode trains then Avanti is probably a more sensible home for them.

Agree that the Newcastle to Edinburgh route is nonsense as a stand-alone service, it could be replaced by extending some of the Scotrail Dunbar services to Berwick (assuming that pathing 100mph units isn't a problem) to cover Reston and East Linton, and/or additional stops on Lumo, XC or LNER if necessary for other stops.

Huddersfield locals to Northern, and Cleethorpes route to EMR both sound eminently sensible.

I would be slightly concerned about splitting the core TransPennine axis running fast trains between Manchester and Leeds between LNER and Northern as you suggest (if I'm reading it right). In my view, that is the essence of TransPennine – fast trains from Liverpool and Manchester to Leeds, York, Hull, Scarborough, Teesside and Manchester. Although with the current trend towards large franchises with smaller business units, it might not be big enough to merit being a stand-alone operation, I do think it needs to be kept together, whether within Northern or LNER – or as an outside bet XCountry, although it doesn't serve Birmingham, it does follow the same model of principle medium/long-distance routes not serving London, and there's plenty of overlap with other XC routes.

 

[RobShipway]

My thinking for bringing the two together in a group (not necessarily into a single company) is that they can start to use shared experience to highlight and manage problems, then in time start to level the two company's pay rates and T&Cs, start to have staff capable of covering across the group, and rationalising routes to better suit each company. It won't be a short term solution, nor will it be easy, but bringing the two into a group might give them chance to share valuable resources and experience to try and turn both around.

Splitting the two down further as suggested will complicate the situation further, and probably result in even more problems as the companies flex against each other. They could of course stay as they are, but frankly they are to all intent and purpose already under the same group. So as they serve the same region and customers, there is probably some sense in formalising this.

So you mean like you have the GTR group, that runs Thameslink, Gatwick Express and Southern TOC's?

Whilst I agree that they maybe should be in the same group, other than sharing engineering and management resources, I am not sure what can be shared?

Manchester to Scotland services did used to be run by XCountry, and it never made a whole lot of sense having them transferred to TPX ... although with the line now being fully electrified and XC having no electric or bi-mode trains then Avanti is probably a more sensible home for them.

Agree that the Newcastle to Edinburgh route is nonsense as a stand-alone service, it could be replaced by extending some of the Scotrail Dunbar services to Berwick (assuming that pathing 100mph units isn't a problem) to cover Reston and East Linton, and/or additional stops on Lumo, XC or LNER if necessary for other stops.

Huddersfield locals to Northern, and Cleethorpes route to EMR both sound eminently sensible.

I would be slightly concerned about splitting the core TransPennine axis running fast trains between Manchester and Leeds between LNER and Northern as you suggest (if I'm reading it right). In my view, that is the essence of TransPennine – fast trains from Liverpool and Manchester to Leeds, York, Hull, Scarborough, Teesside and Manchester. Although with the current trend towards large franchises with smaller business units, it might not be big enough to merit being a stand-alone operation, I do think it needs to be kept together, whether within Northern or LNER – or as an outside bet XCountry, although it doesn't serve Birmingham, it does follow the same model of principle medium/long-distance routes not serving London, and there's plenty of overlap with other XC routes.

I am not sure that AWC have either the stock or capacity to take over the Manchester to Scotland Services. If they did have the stock and the paths where available I would change the Manchester Airport - Scotland services to be Wolverhampton - Scotland via Manchester Airport. But I doubt the paths would be there until HS2 has been completed.

As for the Newcastle - Edingburgh, I would where possible extend the Scotrail services to Newcastle, to replace the Trans Pennine services as I don't see it being any different to the Scotrail services that go to Carlisle.

Whilst I agree if Northern have the stock, that local Huddersfield services should go to Northern, I am not so sure that the Cleethorpes services should go to EMR. I think that they should actually go to Northern to be honest.

The essence of Tran Pennine is trains that cross the Pennine Way. You have to remember that Trans Pennine Express was a brand started back in British Rail days and when privatisation came along the brand was continued within Northern Spirit TOC and it's successor Arriva Trains Northern. Many of the TPE services I believe came from First North Western and Arriva Trains Northern franchises. More details on this can be found in the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_TransPennine_Express

As per the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_TransPennine_Express, it states the following:

"In June 2014 the DfT confirmed two separate franchises in the north of England, one providing intercity rail services and a second providing local rail services. At the time proposals were made to transfer services including York to Scarborough and Doncaster to Cleethorpes services to the Northern franchise and transfer the Nottingham to Liverpool portion of the Norwich to Liverpool service operated by East Midlands Trains to the TransPennine franchise."

Now that Doncaster to Cleethorpes service back in 2014, I believe is now the Sheffield to Cleethorpes once a day service. The East Midland services from Cleethorpes just go as far as either Lincoln Central, Newark Northgate, Barton-On-Humber and the once a day service to Nottingham. This does not fit in with EMR operating services from Cleethorpes to Manchester.

 

[mike57]

In the background, the DfT are micromanaging everything. It's rumoured that DfT declined First permission to implement an emergency timetable on TPE

I have seen this a few times, and I have to ask, Why? Is the real answer that a political decision had already been made to transfer to the OLR, at ministerial level, and therefore everything was being done to obstruct any progress on the issues causing poor service, so that the OLR could step in and make improvements and the minister could claim a 'win'. Cynical, yes but it fits the events. Unfortunately the truth will probably never surface, and it raises the old chestnut: How do you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: His/Her mouth is moving...

The fact that it appears the advice given was to extend the franchise for a further 6 months, which didnt happen indicates political activity behind the scenes.

I was no fan of First TPE, having endured their dire service over the last 5 years. My view is one operating unit with two brands would be the best result, hopefully with co-operation and sharing of resources to the benefit of both brands, and more importantly the customers (i.e. passengers) who have had a raw deal. Over time try and merge all behind the scenes operations, and staff terms and conditions.

The experience of the privatisation era is that fragmentation doesn't work, and that is particularly apparent when there is disruption.

 

[Bantamzen]

Thing is: if the two parts of this "group" have the same T&Cs for staff, the ability for the staff of one to cover work for the other (and vice-versa), and routes allocated in such a way that they are co-operating rather than competing, you've effectively merged them in all but name.

Well ultimately yes, but would that be a bad thing in the context of giving the north a chance of a more stable, reliable network?

Don't get me wrong, and pay levelling across the group would take many years, and perhaps might not ever be fully equalised. Perhaps even TPE such remain at a premium. But being in the same group could allow opportunities such as progression from Northern to TPE as a managed programme, allowing Northern to try and at least stem slow the tide of crew leaving for pastures greener. And perhaps as such there could be a pool of crew mid-progression transiting from Northern to TPE that could act as that cover for either side with the incentive of a fast-track to full TPE ops as & when required. Yes this would involve some complex planning & training, so its just a thought but will the right will & of course staffing levels might not be beyond the bounds of possibility.

The other main motivation for sticking them in the same group would be to allow some rationalisation of their networks. Clearly there are some routes on TPE that would be better served by Northern, and there might be a reverse case for one or two of Northern's routes. Having them in the same group might make this process just a little easier, with Northern ultimately becoming becoming a regional to inter city only operation, and Northern primarily looking after the commuter and some shorter regional routes. Again lots of work needed to achieve any of this, but certainly not impossible.

One final side benefit might be that the two being in the same group would allow for quicker and easier ticket acceptance across the group during disruptions, which are likely to be a theme not only as the operators get through these current problems but also during all the TRU works.

Ultimately the issue is with the way management have allowed IR to decline to a point that the timetable is unworkable, though it obviously isn't helped by the zombie government we currently have in place with no incentive to sort the problem out. I just don't see that redrawing franchise maps will achieve anything practical, this thread just seems to be various posters drawing new boundaries with no rhyme or reason beyond a personal preference or wish-list.

I see the logic of leaving as is, but I do feel that being in one group allows some sharing of best practices and maybe an opportunity to weed out the dead wood floating about amongst the decision making grades.

 

[Whistler40145]

So you mean like you have the GTR group, that runs Thameslink, Gatwick Express and Southern TOC's?

Whilst I agree that they maybe should be in the same group, other than sharing engineering and management resources, I am not sure what can be shared?



I am not sure that AWC have either the stock or capacity to take over the Manchester to Scotland Services. If they did have the stock and the paths where available I would change the Manchester Airport - Scotland services to be Wolverhampton - Scotland via Manchester Airport. But I doubt the paths would be there until HS2 has been completed.

As for the Newcastle - Edingburgh, I would where possible extend the Scotrail services to Newcastle, to replace the Trans Pennine services as I don't see it being any different to the Scotrail services that go to Carlisle.

Whilst I agree if Northern have the stock, that local Huddersfield services should go to Northern, I am not so sure that the Cleethorpes services should go to EMR. I think that they should actually go to Northern to be honest.

The essence of Tran Pennine is trains that cross the Pennine Way. You have to remember that Trans Pennine Express was a brand started back in British Rail days and when privatisation came along the brand was continued within Northern Spirit TOC and it's successor Arriva Trains Northern. Many of the TPE services I believe came from First North Western and Arriva Trains Northern franchises. More details on this can be found in the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_TransPennine_Express

As per the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_TransPennine_Express, it states the following:

"In June 2014 the DfT confirmed two separate franchises in the north of England, one providing intercity rail services and a second providing local rail services. At the time proposals were made to transfer services including York to Scarborough and Doncaster to Cleethorpes services to the Northern franchise and transfer the Nottingham to Liverpool portion of the Norwich to Liverpool service operated by East Midlands Trains to the TransPennine franchise."

Now that Doncaster to Cleethorpes service back in 2014, I believe is now the Sheffield to Cleethorpes once a day service. The East Midland services from Cleethorpes just go as far as either Lincoln Central, Newark Northgate, Barton-On-Humber and the once a day service to Nottingham. This does not fit in with EMR operating services from Cleethorpes to Manchester.

I was under the impression that EMR are taking over the Barton on Humber service, so would make sense for them to operate the Cleethorpes to Manchester Piccadilly/Liverpool Lime Street service

 

[ScottGallagher]

I'm wondering what the TPE picture would currently look like stock wise had the 185 fleet been ordered as or extended to 4 cars as was desired at the time ( denied by the SRA) or even some 5 cars.

Would there be this operational mess?

 

[Energy]

I'm wondering what the TPE picture would currently look like stock wise had the 185 fleet been ordered as or extended to 4 cars as was desired at the time ( denied by the SRA) or even some 5 cars.

Would there be this operational mess?

185s were originally 5 car iirc, shortened by the SRA to 3 cars and later denied extension to 4 car.

If they were the original 5 car length TPE would probably be in a less worse state, it wouldn't change the staffing issues but having all staff trained on the same stock would make it less difficult to sort staffing

I see the logic of leaving as is, but I do feel that being in one group allows some sharing of best practices and maybe an opportunity to weed out the dead wood floating about amongst the decision making grades.

They already are in one group, OLR. The way to fix TPE is:

• Retrain all staff on 185s
• Change staffing to have less staff changes and drivers doing longer distances
• Hire some HR consultants to sort out the management-staff relationship, plenty of firms in the corporate world are great at sorting this out.

Removing dead wood will be difficult as it runs into management staff who get TUPEd across anyway and are more difficult to get rid of. Worth noting that the old FTPE managers typically went around and talked to staff on the ground, Leo Goodwin didn't do this.

 

[ScottGallagher]

185s were originally 5 car iirc, shortened by the SRA to 3 cars and later denied extension to 4 car.

If they were the original 5 car length TPE would probably be in a less worse state, it wouldn't change the staffing issues but having all staff trained on the same stock would make it less difficult to sort staffing

They already are in one group, OLR. The way to fix TPE is:

• Retrain all staff on 185s
• Change staffing to have less staff changes and drivers doing longer distances
• Hire some HR consultants to sort out the management-staff relationship, plenty of firms in the corporate world are great at sorting this out.

Removing dead wood will be difficult as it runs into management staff who get TUPEd across anyway and are more difficult to get rid of. Worth noting that the old FTPE managers typically went around and talked to staff on the ground, Leo Goodwin didn't do this.

I would also predict there would only be one of the Nova fleet at TPE.

As for HR consultants , unless it's just my experience but there is usually nothing but hot air to be gained by having those kind of sessions, if management don't care about staff on the ground that's understood and not good at all but pretending to care and listen and still doing nothing about it is even worse.

 

[Energy]

As for HR consultants , unless it's just my experience but there is usually nothing but hot air to be gained by having those kind of sessions, if management don't care about staff on the ground that's understood and not good at all but pretending to care and listen and still doing nothing about it is even worse.

Agreed, no point in doing it if management don't genuinely care about their employees (some there do, some do not).

I would also predict there would only be one of the Nova fleet at TPE.

I'm not sure, both 802 and 397 retirement seems unlikely.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Agreed, no point in doing it if management don't genuinely care about their employees (some there do, some do not).

I'm not sure, both 802 and 397 retirement seems unlikely.

Sorry Energy I meant with hindsight had the 185s been longer lts likely only one of the fleet type woud have been ordered now probably bi mide 800 series out of the three

 

[JonathanH]

185s were originally 5 car iirc, shortened by the SRA to 3 cars and later denied extension to 4 car.

I'm not sure about that. The original order was cut back from 56 to 51 units, but I don't think 5-car units were considered. Some discussion of a rival bid with 4-car units here.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nglo-scottish-routes.40474/page-3#post-564938

 

[Iskra]

I'm not sure about that. The original order was cut back from 56 to 51 units, but I don't think 5-car units were considered.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nglo-scottish-routes.40474/page-3#post-564938

I think it was 4 cars that were originally planned

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I can’t see anything radical being undertaken at either TPE or Northern this side of a General Election (due sometime next year), therefore sorting out TPE and Northern will be down to whoever forms the next government.

TBH I don’t know what the Tories plans are for rail now they have put their plans for Great British Railways on the back burner and Labour have pledged to bring the railways back under public ownership if they get back in, so I can’t see them letting anymore franchises and those that expire will likely be brought back under OLR as they expire. The most likely outcome is that the current situation at TPE and Northern continues for at least the next couple of years with some changes to improve performance until the next government decides what it actually wants to do with the railways.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

The northern section of the WCML should still be part of the CrossCountry network and not with TransPennine Express

I agree. If CrossCountry got new bi modes then XC operating the WCML instead of TPE would open up another direct route between Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland not just reinstate XC services in the North West.

It would free up 397's for use elsewhere in TPE at least or even allow for some Class 185 displacement.

 

[Energy]

I'm not sure about that. The original order was cut back from 56 to 51 units, but I don't think 5-car units were considered. Some discussion of a rival bid with 4-car units here.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nglo-scottish-routes.40474/page-3#post-564938

Fair enough, 5 cars was what I heard though I cant remember the source.

 

[Chester1]

Its probably not worth the hassle merging at this stage. If Labour win next election and nationalise through letting contracts lapse then TPE could be carved up between a national long distance ToC and Northern.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Fair enough, 5 cars was what I heard though I cant remember the source.

I'm pretty sure that the individual carriage numbers, within the sets, are finished 1,2 and 4.
Big indicator that "3" is the missing center car.

 

[CAF397]

I'm pretty sure that the individual carriage numbers, within the sets, are finished 1,2 and 4.
Big indicator that "3" is the missing center car.

2 is the missing centre car actually.

511xx-531xx-541xx.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm pretty sure that the individual carriage numbers, within the sets, are finished 1,2 and 4.
Big indicator that "3" is the missing center car.

2 is the missing centre car actually.

511xx-531xx-541xx.

2 simply wasn't available, as 521xx is where the 150s sit. It isn't a sign there was a missing car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. If CrossCountry got new bi modes then XC operating the WCML instead of TPE would open up another direct route between Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland not just reinstate XC services in the North West.

It would free up 397's for use elsewhere in TPE at least or even allow for some Class 185 displacement.

If we want to take the WCML services off TPE, Avanti would make most sense, the 7 car 807s would be ideal, either spare if the second Liverpool doesn't happen or a follow on order if it does.

 

[sprinterguy]

If we want to take the WCML services off TPE, Avanti would make most sense, the 7 car 807s would be ideal, either spare if the second Liverpool doesn't happen or a follow on order if it does.

I've never understood the appeal of removing Manchester - Scotland from the TPE franchise, or the assumption that different stock would be brought in if that were to happen, but if both were to occur then that is by far the most attractive alternative I've seen proposed.

I'm not sure about that. The original order was cut back from 56 to 51 units, but I don't think 5-car units were considered. Some discussion of a rival bid with 4-car units here.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nglo-scottish-routes.40474/page-3#post-564938

Indeed, I remember an artists impression of an Arriva liveried Meridian splashed across the cover of, I think, RAIL magazine twenty years ago while the franchise competition was ongoing.

I can't recall anything about 5-car units being proposed by First, and rummaging back through all the available sources online I can't find anything that suggests First were ever proposing anything other than 3-car units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It would free up 397's for use elsewhere in TPE at least or even allow for some Class 185 displacement.

It's going to be a fair while before there's anywhere else TPE could use a straight EMU.

 

[CAF397]

2 simply wasn't available, as 521xx is where the 150s sit. It isn't a sign there was a missing car.

Indeed. But, as with other fleet coach numbers, we simply don't know what the number may have been 526xx for example.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2023 ==

I've never understood the appeal of removing Manchester - Scotland from the TPE franchise, or the assumption that different stock would be brought in if that were to happen, but if both were to occur then that is by far the most attractive alternative I've seen proposed.

The WCML Manchester/Liverpool-Scotland services were part of the Intercity network in the 90s. Liverpool services were discontinued, but Manchester services remained with the Intercity Cross Country/Virgin XC franchise.

It was the changes to the Cross Country franchise that caused the WCML services to be placed with TPE - one would argue that fit was unsuitable using 3-car 185s on what used to be Mk2/HST services.

So the natural successor to the WCML services would be a true Intercity operator, like Avanti. The 397s are a stand alone fleet within TPE, and the driver depots who sign them (Glasgow/Preston/Manchester) have very little to do with the rest of the TPE network - apart from Manchester which retain 185 traction knowledge, but that's more for convenience than essential, Manchester Airport guards sign 397s, that is the only hard decision to make. It would be relatively easy to TUPE the 397 traincrew to Avanti.