Arriva Transpennine Express

[MCR247]

But having 3tph from Manchester - London, is good for publicity, I doubt they are actually needed

 

[danfitz123]

IMHO the Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes service has nothing to do with other TPE services (even calling it "TPE South" seems a bit false, but that's the timetable description it got); it was added to the franchise to beef it up, but would fit better with EMT or maybe even Northern would be better than TPE.

Newcastle - Carlisle or York - Blackpool cross the Pennines but aren't part of "Transpennine", so I'm not sure why the Cleethorpes service is (it serves Manchester Airport, as a lot of TPE services do, but then so does Southport - MIA and Liverpool - MIA and MIA - Crewe!)



It's a hard service as it's not really in anyone's "area". EMT do serve Sheffield, Nottingham, Grantham and Peterborough, so there's some logic to it being with them.

One trouble with it (other than train length, bottlenecks etc) is whether it's better to run it from the middle or from each end. As EMT are running it from the middle, they don't have the resources at Liverpool or Norwich (so early/ late services don't go "full route" and trips are often capped before getting to the terminus if things go wrong).

Here in South Yorkshire the Sheffield - Rotherham - Doncaster bus service used to be jointly operated from Sheffield and Doncaster depots. Now, it's 99% run from Rotherham, which gives some benefits but a lot of disadvantages.

If the Liverpool - Norwich service was run as a joint Northern/ NXEA service then it would solve a lot of problems (but create others!)

So what would XC's "area" be.
The closest thing to norwich is NXEA isn't it?

 

[WillPS]

One trouble with it (other than train length, bottlenecks etc) is whether it's better to run it from the middle or from each end. As EMT are running it from the middle, they don't have the resources at Liverpool or Norwich (so early/ late services don't go "full route" and trips are often capped before getting to the terminus if things go wrong).

Here in South Yorkshire the Sheffield - Rotherham - Doncaster bus service used to be jointly operated from Sheffield and Doncaster depots. Now, it's 99% run from Rotherham, which gives some benefits but a lot of disadvantages.

If the Liverpool - Norwich service was run as a joint Northern/ NXEA service then it would solve a lot of problems (but create others!)

EMT have two units a night at Norwich Crown Point where they receive the same sort of attention they'd get at Nottingham Eastcroft, harking back to the days when both depots were run by NX/Maintrain.

 

[tbtc]

EMT have two units a night at Norwich Crown Point where they receive the same sort of attention they'd get at Nottingham Eastcroft, harking back to the days when both depots were run by NX/Maintrain.

That's a lot better than at the Liverpool end (with the "placing" journeys at three in the morning...), and I know that they used to run Yarmouth runs in the morning (at Norwich).

However, having two units doesn't leave *that* much spare if things go wrong (unlike if NXEA were running the service, so had more flexibility)

 

[MCR247]

Not really, because if say a 158 fails in Liverpool, EMT can send a train to Sheffield to take it's path, whereas if it was based in Norwich, then they are screwed.

 

[tbtc]

Not really, because if say a 158 fails in Liverpool, EMT can send a train to Sheffield to take it's path, whereas if it was based in Norwich, then they are screwed.

Yeah, I was talking (earlier) about if NXEA and Northern ran it jointly - they'd have no depot in the "middle", but would at each end - would that be better?

 

[cuccir]

I think it makes more sense than putting TPE with Northern. I would keep TPE standalone rather than merge it with Northern. The current XC with TPE, and the Liverpool-Norwich route from EMT would make a good franchise as I see it.

Keeps routes with first class together, makes for a more complete XC map, and could facilitate the movement of some TPE routes to "more IC standard" rolling stock. In addition some routes could be amended and interlaced with current XC routes to keep the core frequencies but provide more journey possibilities. Norwich-Newcastle, Hull-Reading or Glasgow-Nottingham anyone?

+1

I agree here. It would streamline services in the North East and Yorkshire as well and could create a new 'North to non-London intercity franchise'. It also keeps Northern as a rural and suburban specialist which I think is a good thing.

 

[Nym]

TPE being seperate does make sense, think of it as the intercity services serving Manchester. Shouldn't me merged with XC... Should be looking to be a bit modified though, Manchester - Scotland should be going back into the hands of VT, then it can be run by tilting stock and get a lick on out of Manchester. But with everything being centralised on stock allocation etc etc. It makes no difference who the TOC is.

PS. 3tph Manchester - London is needed, had pulled more passengers than ever on to the rails.

 

[northwichcat]

Strikes and staff shortages leading to lots of cancellations and emergency timetables, as I far as I am aware.

Yes that was common with ATN. However, the situation was exactly the same with FNW. The latter had some services cancelled every day for around 3 months due to staff refusing to work overtime and FNW only got them reinstated after taking on more staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

PS. 3tph Manchester - London is needed, had pulled more passengers than ever on to the rails.

Just left a shortage of paths for Northern's local services while Virgin are sending 90% empty Pendolinos northbound in the morning peak and 90% empty Pendolinos southbound in the evening peak.

 

[sprinterguy]

I like the TPE franchise as it is. Whilst there is more merit to combining it with the current greater Northern franchise than there was with a north east franchise as was the case in the past, Transpennine Express should be treated as a separate inter-regional operator and not grouped in with local services. Whilst very nearly operationally separate from TPE North, I think TPE South also deserves to have a good quality inter-regional attitude to its’ operation, so grouping it into the Transpennine franchise seems like a good idea to me. If you were to prune TPE, to group Manchester to Scotland services with West Coast and TPE South services with EMT, then that leaves a rather small franchise as TPE North if it were to be kept separate. Maybe the York-Blackpool service could be combined with Transpennine North if the boundaries were altered as set out above.

I sincerely hope that Arriva never end up with the TPE franchise: Arriva Trains Northern was mediocre at best, Crosscountry is similarly bland and ATW, whilst seeming to be a more steady and reliable franchise, aren’t hugely noteworthy. Leave it with First, they seem to be doing a good job with it (Once you forget about them running the Transpennine 158s into the ground at the start of the franchise).

As for Liverpool-Norwich, having the service operated by EMT seems the most logical decision, as the route spends the greatest amount of time in the EMT area and East Midlands Trains is the central section of the route.

 

[tbtc]

Just left a shortage of paths for Northern's local services while Virgin are sending 90% empty Pendolinos northbound in the morning peak and 90% empty Pendolinos southbound in the evening peak.

I know a lot has been written about Big Bad Virgin depriving Northern of paths, and I agree that Northern gets a bad deal with paths in some of the areas it operates (one reason I would be in favour of Northern services being linked to another TOC in some places).

However, the Virgin service is only one additional service an hour; if it's caused several more Northern journeys to be chopped/ amended then I'd suggest that there are other factors at play too.

(Of course a "90% empty" Voyager is still carrying a decent load when compared to a short 142)

 

[northwichcat]

However, the Virgin service is only one additional service an hour; if it's caused several more Northern journeys to be chopped/ amended then I'd suggest that there are other factors at play too.

Not all services equal one path. Some of the freight going to Trafford Park uses enough paths for 3 or 4 local services and the freight has seen an off-peak cut in the number of paths available due to the extra Pendolinos.

The extra 2 paths for 2 Pendolinos over a 2 hour period in the peaks has seen 2 local services starting/terminating at Stockport and 2x Crewe-Stockport-Manchester stoppers lost altogether.

(Of course a "90% empty" Voyager is still carrying a decent load when compared to a short 142)

Some Voyagers only have 200 seats, while 142s have up to 120. 20 people on a Voyager (90% of 200) is not a good load. Although, I'm sure some people wish there was only 20 people on the Voyager they were travelling on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for Liverpool-Norwich, having the service operated by EMT seems the most logical decision, as the route spends the greatest amount of time in the EMT area and East Midlands Trains is the central section of the route.

It does create problems as well though. Just a couple of weeks ago heavy snow closed the Hope Valley route and as EMT are based East of the Pennines they ran a Sheffield-Norwich service only that left the busiest part of the route (Liverpool-Manchester) with a severe lack of capacity.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

It does create problems as well though. Just a couple of weeks ago heavy snow closed the Hope Valley route and as EMT are based East of the Pennines they ran a Sheffield-Norwich service only that left the busiest part of the route (Liverpool-Manchester) with a severe lack of capacity.

And it left an EMT 158 marooned at Manchester Piccadilly for a few days!

The sensible thing for services such as this is to share traincrews (and dare I say it units), which then makes the outer ends more workable early and late and also in case of disruptions.

In the TPE franchise, for example, the "Northern" services between Scarborough and Hull are worked by Northern units, but traincrew are provided jointly by Northern from Hull depot, and TPE Scarborough depot. Importantly, the first trains out of and last trains into Scarborough are worked by TPE crews, thus negating the need to get the Northern crews back to Hull. Northern do not have a depot at Scarborough for the small number of services that run there.

The Barton-on-Humber branch, despite being a Northern service and using a Northern 153 is worked exclusively by TPE traincrew as Northern do not have staff that far out. The earliest service out of Cleethorpes to Barton is (or at least used to be) also worked by a TPE 185.

Look also at the Scotrail services from Stranraer to Newcastle, which use Northern traincrew between Carlisle and Newcastle.

Things like this make things a lot easier, and in my view the sensible solution would be to have TPE traincrew at the Manchester / Sheffield end, and NXEA crews at the Norwich end sign 158s, thus giving more flexibility with traincrew resources at the outer ends. The situation regarding spare stock would be more difficult to resolve however - but the traincrew situation would be a start. It would also save all these very longwinded empty moves from Nottingham to Liverpool and allow some extra degree of flexibility in the timetabling at least.

 

[185]

I worked a 142 from York to Liverpool / back once under ATN )

Window labels, reservations (sellotaped on) and drinks trolley. No 1st Class though dammit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Only reason FirstGroup have (appeared) to do well is the huge pile of taxpayers money thrown at them.

They have not really delivered good value. People should remember that Arriva proposed 4-car vehicles in their 2002 bid for the franchise.

FirstGroup promised in 2003 they would not repeat the errors they made at First North Western. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3974527.stm Oops. They did. Within six months.