Construction progress: TPE 350/4

[pdq]

Are there any hints about which services will be the first to be strengthened as 185s get released?

 

[harz99]

From Monday 30th December - Thursday 2nd January the 0715 MIA - GLC and 1109 GLC - MIA will be worked by a 350. On 30th December it is scheduled to be 2 x 350.

Admittedly only using the NR journey planner, but cannot get those times to stack up for 30/12 to 2/1/14. 0715 from MAN and 1109 to MAN perhaps?

 

[Eagle]

0715 from MAN and 1109 to MAN perhaps?

That is correct; due to various engineering work over the new year those services have been cut back to Piccadilly.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Here are a few more piccies:

As an aside, please also note that the "entry to service" diagrams have changed:

From Monday 30th December - Thursday 2nd January the 0715 MIA - GLC and 1109 GLC - MIA will be worked by a 350. On 30th December it is scheduled to be 2 x 350. The previously planned diagram starting with the 0558 from MIA to EDB will be 185 worked on these days, I believe 2 x 185s.

From Friday 3rd January onwards the already planned diagrams will apply, which will see the 0558 MIA - EDB, 1008 EDB - MIA, 1400 MIA - EDB and 1812 EDB - MIA being 350 worked on SX dates.

Not sure what the weekend plan is I'm afraid.

Also to note: Seating round tables is arranged in a facing / backing format for seat reservations so there are 2 of some seat numbers - so it should be possible, for the first time, to book facing or backing seats on TPE services!

Many thanks for the changes on these, Glad I noticed as planning on going out for them. ↲ i womer if
harz99
is also? The fact they have 2 ready for service is testiment to the fact that they work streight out the box, good P R for them as the last new Deziros in Scotland certainly
didnt
work this way and although I understand it was a new design etc it was bad PR for them!↲

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there any hints about which services will be the first to be strengthened as 185s get released?

At a guess, some of the services still routed Via Bolton.

 

[jimm]

I was thinking about the Cotswolds line rather than the Thames Valley services in general. Hereford/Worcester - PAD sounds like rather a long way to go on 166s/165s, and the 180s seem to have been welcomed there. Maybe the number of 166s/165s built was actually correct but they shoud have been joined by stock suitable for the longer distance runs too?

When the Cotswold Line passed to Network South East from Regional Railways (which was using 150s from its Birmingham fleet), NSE, not surprisingly, wanted something that was compatible with the new dmus it had on order for the Thames Valley, so the 166 was hastily created out of the 165 design. As this was BR and it was built to a budget, the interiors remained much the same as the 165, rather than being suitable for longer journeys, but a three-car set with 2+2 seats would have been woefully sort of capacity on busier trains and the 166s were soon overwhelmed in any case.

A four-car 166, with 2+2 seats in standard and vestibule doors to keep the chill out of the passenger saloons, would have been a perfectly acceptable train for the route - and if the proposed 200-car dmu order had not bitten the dust due to electrifcation annnouncements, FGW was hoping to acquire something in that vein - like the four-car Class 171s with 240 seats - for the Cotswold Line on the services not worked by HSTs.

Could the Turbostar design not have been adapted to include a 158-like regional express varient?

No, because that would have required a completely different design of bodyshell from the Turbostar/Electrostar family, I'm no engineer but it's obviously rather more complicated than just putting holes for the doors in a different place.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think the first major refit of any 170s for long distance work will include vestibule doors to all areas, something XC Should have done and Scotrail should never have undone. Anyone who hasbashed the HML in the middle of winter or the Fife coast during a Gale will know what I mean!

 

[jimm]

That is not what the 170s were designed for. They were designed, by ABB/Adtranz in the late 1990s, as regional express units.

Hardly, the design was created in the muddle caused by privatisation to be one that could be used as the basis for a variety of needs, be that regional express or suburban, with interiors tailored to fit what operators wanted, which turned out to be 2+2 regional style.

If someone had wanted a suburban version with 3+2 seats, like the 165/166 from which the Turbostar was derived, Derby would have been happy to oblige, but with lots of relatively new 14xs and 150s about, no-one was buying units for that type of job at the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, I remember getting a 150/2 from Liverpool to Scarborough. Horrible!

But they were only used on that route for a short time so that BR could get rid of locos and coaches to cut help operating costs while it waited for something more suitable - the 158s - to come off the production line.

 

[Blindtraveler]

And the picture is now a cloudy one where 170s are concerned given FSRs indiscriminate use of them on any deezol working from a local to Cumbernauld to an Inverness express. LM also suffer this way with them turning up on Herefords one minute and the Chase line the next.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Admittedly only using the NR journey planner, but cannot get those times to stack up for 30/12 to 2/1/14. 0715 from MAN and 1109 to MAN perhaps?

Yes oops, sorry my mistake. So used to them being MIA services!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there any hints about which services will be the first to be strengthened as 185s get released?

Believe the 0640 BPN - MIA is being given priority as that is full from Preston very full from Chorley and crush loaded after Horwich with Bolton passengers just about squeezing on if everyone breathes in. That is nothing to do with this recent change though, it has been like it for a long time.

 

[fowler9]

Hardly, the design was created in the muddle caused by privatisation to be one that could be used as the basis for a variety of needs, be that regional express or suburban, with interiors tailored to fit what operators wanted, which turned out to be 2+2 regional style.

If someone had wanted a suburban version with 3+2 seats, like the 165/166 from which the Turbostar was derived, Derby would have been happy to oblige, but with lots of relatively new 14xs and 150s about, no-one was buying units for that type of job at the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But they were only used on that route for a short time so that BR could get rid of locos and coaches to cut help operating costs while it waited for something more suitable - the 158s - to come off the production line.

Ah thats alright then! Maybe they could have just not had trains and run Leyland Atlanteans down the M62 instead. Save a bit more cash! Just out of interest is there anything some people won't defend about the railways even when when it is utterly ludicrous?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But they were only used on that route for a short time so that BR could get rid of locos and coaches to cut help operating costs while it waited for something more suitable - the 158s - to come off the production line.

It is now 21 years since the last of the Class 158 rolled of the production line at Derby Works. How time flies by, the older you get...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Suburban stock and one third/two thirds doors are two circles on a bigger Venn Diagram

The Venn Diagram is bigger yes, but if I was drawing it the circles for "one third/two third doors" and "regional express" would be disjoint (ie. have no overlap whatsoever).

Given that 170s were first introduced on routes like Barnsley/ Matlock/ Nottingham - London, Edinburgh - Glasgow, Lowestoft - London, Hull - London etc, I don't know where the idea of "suburban stopping routes" comes from.

Suburban/stopping services is all I think them fit for. The fact they (and 185s) are used on regional express duties is the reason for my opinion that too many have been built compared to true regional express units.

Ultimately the railway will be cheaper to run if there are fewer designs of rolling stock so longer term there are likely to be 2 formats, High Speed and Suburban (as you like to call it).

It's the technical stuff like traction motors, engines etc. that makes most difference to the cost surely? Different door arangments with the same technology wouldn't make much difference in costs. I'd say there should be arround 5 types of stock:

• INTERCITY (125/140mph end doors)
• Regional Express (90-110mph end doors)
• Outer suburban/stopping (90-110mph 1/3,2/3 doors)
• Rural (75mph end doors)
• Inner suburban (75-100mph 1/3,2/3 metro-style doors, like a 150)

The regional express and outer-suburban could have many of the same components. The rural and inner suburban probably could also.

Given Siemens are supplying 110mph 350s and Bombardier 110mph 387s with 1/3 - 2/3 most TOCs ROSCOs etc don't think it is a problem either to use 1/3 - 2/3 on regional express type services.

110mph can still be useful on stopping services, but a long-distance limited stop service should be using suitable long-distance stock, not 1/3-2/3 doors.

 

[ainsworth74]

Suburban/stopping services is all I think them fit for. The fact they (and 185s) are used on regional express duties is the reason for my opinion that too many have been built compared to true regional express units.

Though of course the acceleration of 170s is such that they are not suited to stopping services...

I honestly don't get the obsession with avoiding 1/3 2/3 doors. I've been on 170s and 185s in deepest winter, with storms and with dogs/cats/goats whatever flying around in the air and I've never found the door location to be issue to the ambiance of the carriage! I have, however, found them very useful at places like Leeds where you might have 100+ people getting off and another 100+ getting on at ensuring that your are not stood at Leeds for five minutes or more whilst everyone gets off single file and then gets on single file.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Venn Diagram is bigger yes, but if I was drawing it the circles for "one third/two third doors" and "regional express" would be disjoint (ie. have no overlap whatsoever).

Suburban/stopping services is all I think them fit for. The fact they (and 185s) are used on regional express duties is the reason for my opinion that too many have been built compared to true regional express units.

It's the technical stuff like traction motors, engines etc. that makes most difference to the cost surely? Different door arangments with the same technology wouldn't make much difference in costs. I'd say there should be arround 5 types of stock:

• INTERCITY (125/140mph end doors)
• Regional Express (90-110mph end doors)
• Outer suburban/stopping (90-110mph 1/3,2/3 doors)
• Rural (75mph end doors)
• Inner suburban (75-100mph 1/3,2/3 metro-style doors, like a 150)

The regional express and outer-suburban could have many of the same components. The rural and inner suburban probably could also.

110mph can still be useful on stopping services, but a long-distance limited stop service should be using suitable long-distance stock, not 1/3-2/3 doors.

The plan post-Ordsall Chord is for SIX fast/semi-fast services between Leeds and Manchester, with 5 from next May. If the 185s had been built with a 444-style bodyshell, performance even now with 4 'express' services would struggle to keep time due to dwell times at intermediate stations. Services like this, with that level of frequency, need a compromise in terms of rolling stock design. Vestibule doors would help, but only if every train was to be a minimum of 4 coaches, due to the current numbers of standing passengers even in the off-peak on the TP-core (LDS-HUD-MAN).

I can only just remember the days of loco-hauled services on the Transpennine line, and yes, they were comfortable (for the time) and usually had plenty of room (I believe 5-6 passenger-carrying Mk1s/Mk2s were the norm). However there was at best 2 express services per hour between Huddersfield and Leeds or Manchester. If starting from Jan 2, TPE were to run 9-car 185 services only every 30mins, I imagine passenger numbers would decline pretty quickly- the 'turn-up-and-go' timetable is a far bigger draw for a 20min trip like Huddersfield to Leeds than a comfy seat! And that's disregarding the problem that a 9-car 185 would probably not fit in platforms at Huddersfield P1&8!

Though of course the acceleration of 170s is such that they are not suited to stopping services...

It's a shame the 172-design wasn't adopted earlier, as their lighter weight offers much-improved acceleration and lower track access charges compared to their earlier cousins. :roll:

 

[tbtc]

The Venn Diagram is bigger yes, but if I was drawing it the circles for "one third/two third doors" and "regional express" would be disjoint (ie. have no overlap whatsoever).

Suburban/stopping services is all I think them fit for. The fact they (and 185s) are used on regional express duties is the reason for my opinion that too many have been built compared to true regional express units.

It's the technical stuff like traction motors, engines etc. that makes most difference to the cost surely? Different door arangments with the same technology wouldn't make much difference in costs. I'd say there should be arround 5 types of stock:

• INTERCITY (125/140mph end doors)
• Regional Express (90-110mph end doors)
• Outer suburban/stopping (90-110mph 1/3,2/3 doors)
• Rural (75mph end doors)
• Inner suburban (75-100mph 1/3,2/3 metro-style doors, like a 150)

The regional express and outer-suburban could have many of the same components. The rural and inner suburban probably could also.

110mph can still be useful on stopping services, but a long-distance limited stop service should be using suitable long-distance stock, not 1/3-2/3 doors.

I think you are being far too prescriptive in the five types of route that you are splitting things up into. The real railway is a lot messier. A 125mph service from London becomes a (virtually) "all stops" service as it gets closer to Penzance/ Aberdeen/ Hereford etc.

What is Manchester - Pembroke Dock, for example? Fast from Manchester to Crewe, but every stop beyond Carmarthen. You've got to be realistic and accept that few services perfectly fit the definitions that you've given. And then you've got to remember that interworking means that a unit on a long distance service has to also be suitable for the shorter distance service its going to go on next (e.g. Inverness - Glasgow services get used on Anniesland shuttles), and that TOCs don't have the luxury of keeping five separate fleets at each depot (so unrealistic to have two 75mph suburban-specific DMUs at a depot that has dozens of 100mph longer distance units).

Lastly, spend some time on a busy platform like 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and note the way that end-door stock stock like 158s takes a lot longer to unload/ fill than something like a 170/185.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Reluctant as I am to take this thread more off topic, I agree with Rhydgaled. Now, what are the chances of getting back to transpenine 350s?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is Manchester - Pembroke Dock, for example? Fast from Manchester to Crewe, but every stop beyond Carmarthen.

How many direct Manchester Piccadilly to Pembroke Dock services run these days ?

 

[starrymarkb]

Probably could have been- the *star platform is modular, as with most modern stock. I'd guess that the only reason there weren't any such units built was no-one ordered them.

Didn't they offer standard 170s to IE when IE were looking for a Mk3 replacement InterCity Railcar with end doors. IE went to Hyundai who were willing to build something to match the Mk3

 

[fgwrich]

Didn't they offer standard 170s to IE when IE were looking for a Mk3 replacement InterCity Railcar with end doors. IE went to Hyundai who were willing to build something to match the Mk3

They did. And happily unsuccessful they were too. They then when to NI Railways with the heavily delayed 172 to offer up for the New Trains II project, which was duly won by CAF with the 4CK / 4000 Class - one of the reasons were compatibility with the exsisting 3 CKs.

 

[Goatboy]

I think you are being far too prescriptive in the five types of route that you are splitting things up into. The real railway is a lot messier. A 125mph service from London becomes a (virtually) "all stops" service as it gets closer to Penzance/ Aberdeen/ Hereford etc.

And what stock operate these services?

Ah yes, end door fitted, comfortable long distance stock.

Because end door stuff in random middle of nowhere all stop services are not quite as dissatisfying as long journeys on metro-style stock. End door stuck is only a problem on stopping services when they are high load commuter style services.

 

[ainsworth74]

Such as TPE North core you mean?

 

[tbtc]

I think you are being far too prescriptive in the five types of route that you are splitting things up into. The real railway is a lot messier. A 125mph service from London becomes a (virtually) "all stops" service as it gets closer to Penzance/ Aberdeen/ Hereford etc

And what stock operate these services?

Ah yes, end door fitted, comfortable long distance stock.

Because end door stuff in random middle of nowhere all stop services are not quite as dissatisfying as long journeys on metro-style stock. End door stuck is only a problem on stopping services when they are high load commuter style services

Never been on a 166 from London to Hereford?

 

[Goatboy]

Never been on a 166 from London to Hereford?

Virtually every Paddington to Hereford service is an HST or an Adelante. Infact are there even any 166's booked to Hereford? They are not really suitable for such a route which is why FGW is loath to use them as such.

 

[Rich McLean]

Virtually every Paddington to Hereford service is an HST or an Adelante. Infact are there even any 166's booked to Hereford? They are not really suitable for such a route which is why FGW is loath to use them as such.

It does happen when a HST has failed or during disruption, but it isn't very often.

On a Saturday a while back when FGW was totally up the wall, a 2 car 165 made it all the way to Hereford and back vice HST

There are photo's on google

 

[Class377/5]

Reluctant as I am to take this thread more off topic, I agree with Rhydgaled. Now, what are the chances of getting back to transpenine 350s?

Talk is 350403 has been commissioned now alongside 401. No word on 402 tho.

 

[jimm]

Virtually every Paddington to Hereford service is an HST or an Adelante. Infact are there even any 166's booked to Hereford? They are not really suitable for such a route which is why FGW is loath to use them as such.

No London-Hereford services are operated by a 180. Since their return to FGW use, they do not go west of Great Malvern.

And yesterday, the same as every Sunday for some years now, the 14.42 from Paddington to Hereford and the 18.30 back was operated by a 16x. Should be a 166 but 165s, with a single toilet, do appear on 166 duties on the Cotswold Line on occasion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah thats alright then! Maybe they could have just not had trains and run Leyland Atlanteans down the M62 instead. Save a bit more cash! Just out of interest is there anything some people won't defend about the railways even when when it is utterly ludicrous?

Ludicrous was pretty much the word that came to mind when I saw this post. So BR should have just carried on using decrepit, unreliable Class 47s and worn-out early-build Mk2 coaches then, should it?

 

[Crossover]

LM's 172s are pretty much confined to suburban stopping routes. Furthest from Birmingham you'll see one is Great Malvern.

Wrong! They get to Hereford. Source...I have been on one!

 

[Starmill]

LM's 172s are pretty much confined to suburban stopping routes. Furthest from Birmingham you'll see one is Great Malvern.

My back disagreed with you profoundly when we got back to New St on one from Hereford!

 

[fowler9]

No London-Hereford services are operated by a 180. Since their return to FGW use, they do not go west of Great Malvern.

And yesterday, the same as every Sunday for some years now, the 14.42 from Paddington to Hereford and the 18.30 back was operated by a 16x. Should be a 166 but 165s, with a single toilet, do appear on 166 duties on the Cotswold Line on occasion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ludicrous was pretty much the word that came to mind when I saw this post. So BR should have just carried on using decrepit, unreliable Class 47s and worn-out early-build Mk2 coaches then, should it?

Well it is all just a matter of opinion. Use unreliable Class 47's and worn out early build mark 2 coaches or use local suburban DMU's on fairly long distance trains, replace 6 carraiges with 2with 3+2 seating. What do you reckon?

 

[Class172]

Wrong! They get to Hereford. Source...I have been on one!

As far as I'm aware that only happens at week-ends.