Construction progress: TPE 350/4

[transmanche]

The solution is stock with doors at 1/3-2/3, but with sufficient capacity (read: longer trains- ideally 5/6-car minimum) that vestibule doors can be fitted and in use outside of the peaks to cut down on draughts.

One point worth noting is that the doors on a 185 are closer to a 1/4-3/4 arrangement than 1/3-2/3.

TBH, I don't find draughts to be a major problem. If the train is busy, then the standing passengers help in blocking the draughts! Having a relatively short automatic door close period would improve matters (I don't know what the current setting is.) And if more boarding passengers closed the doors after them, that would also help too.

 

[Class377/5]

Is there any word on when the sets will be stickers and liveried yet? I've noted a few complaining about carriages not being labelled and the like - when will it all be done? Is there time and slack in the 350 fleet for it to be done sharpish?

With three passenger diagrams and one training unit, seven delivered and six have been in service with units 8/9 arriving this weekend I'd have though there was slack to sticker up the carriages.

 

[ModernRailways]

I'd say I partially agree with you. FTPE doesn't seem to know what it is meant to be doing. The trains are laid out like it is a commuter service but tickets are sold like its for long distance travellers who have planned a long time in advance. They have a difficult job to do though, the country is crowded with more and more people commuting further.

Agreed. Although, they need to sort their marketing out. Right now, it's a complete mess.

I don't agree with this: I think it should be closer to a coach or more. Consider that half a coach is taken up by the extremely low density First Class that can't even be used as standing space without declassification...

I was thinking more along the lines of a full coach myself What I was also thinking was, was that the first class compartment would be in the same carriage as the unreserved standard.

By the way, what will happen if/when a 185 substitutes for a 350 as regards to seat reservations? Surely, there will be way too many passengers no doubt resulting in many left behind!

 

[Blindtraveler]

of course, but since when did TPE Give a jot about pax cumfort? They were all marketing hype when 350s started running but now I agree its back to normal with too many reservations and other issues. I tried to suggest on twitter that a full coach be left unreserved and got ignored!↲

 

[IanXC]

I agree about the stock choice too. TPE seem to be aiming for the more leisure traveller in their marketing, yet their stock is more suited to a commuter style all stations service, that would be stopping every 5 minutes or so.

TPE's advertising targets leisure travellers because this is the market where they have availability on their trains. It'd hardly be popular if they advertised targeting commuters and made the services yet more overcrowded!

Although, in saying that these are London Midlands units on loan TPE IIRC.

No, they are not.

The 350s (and the 185s) are not suitable for TPE's operations and hopefully something better will be built when the Manchester-Newcastle line is fully electrified.

Not suitable for what reason? Whilst I would agree that they are not long enough - what strategy they go for for new stock remains to be seen, theres a balance between shorter units which can be used in multiple, and longer ones which can't - there is no question that the door layout is inevitable. If you've seen peak boarding on the Manchester-York corridor you'll realise why. The only other option would be to have separate stock for the Airport-York and Manchester-Selby semi fasts with 1/3 2/3, and separate stock for Newcastle-Liverpool, but that would seem to be an overly complex fleet.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Problem is, the old 158s struggled to keep to time between Leeds and Manchester at 4tph. From May, it'll be 5tph and once the wiring and 'Hub' is completed it'll be 6tph. Dwell times at Huddersfield would balloon if those services all had end-doors!

Which is why I said the design should be similar to a 175 (rather than a 158, as dwells on a 175 are apparently quicker than with a 158) and longer trains. The extra length should help compensate for the slightly slower boarding times of a 175 versus a 185.

 

[Blindtraveler]

its a shame really that more 175s wernt built - TPE, ATW, FGW and ScotRail could all make use of them in there hundreds and would have been good to see an electric version of the 180 too as I guess if such stock were with us now so many of these issues wouldnt be!

 

[swt_passenger]

One point worth noting is that the doors on a 185 are closer to a 1/4-3/4 arrangement than 1/3-2/3.

I think that's true for every unit with the 'suburban' door style, whether EMU or DMU, I can't think of anything where the train is divided into 3 similar lengthened sections, there's nearly always half a coach or so between the doors.

One of those 'shorthand' descriptions that has wrongly developed...

 

[transmanche]

I think that's true for every unit with the 'suburban' door style, whether EMU or DMU, I can't think of anything where the train is divided into 3 similar lengthened sections, there's nearly always half a coach or so between the doors.

One of those 'shorthand' descriptions that has wrongly developed...

I think many older units do have a door arrangement that's closer to 1/3-2/3; such as 150s, 319s, 456s - and probably all MUs using PEP/mark 3 derived bodyshells.
.
The first stock that I recall having a noticeable shift in door positioning was the Networker bodyshell (e.g. 365s, etc).

 

[ModernRailways]

TPE's advertising targets leisure travellers because this is the market where they have availability on their trains. It'd hardly be popular if they advertised targeting commuters and made the services yet more overcrowded!

They don't have availability on their trains though do they? I had the misfortune of having to travel from Edinburgh down to Manchester with them and the leisure travellers going for a day out in another city couldn't all get seats, by the time we reached Preston it was starting to become a wedge as if it was morning commuter train into London, only instead it was around 1230!

No, they are not.

I wasn't overly sure, thanks for letting me know. What was it London Midland had to do with the order as I'm sure they played a part?

Not suitable for what reason? Whilst I would agree that they are not long enough - what strategy they go for for new stock remains to be seen, theres a balance between shorter units which can be used in multiple, and longer ones which can't - there is no question that the door layout is inevitable. If you've seen peak boarding on the Manchester-York corridor you'll realise why. The only other option would be to have separate stock for the Airport-York and Manchester-Selby semi fasts with 1/3 2/3, and separate stock for Newcastle-Liverpool, but that would seem to be an overly complex fleet.

I'd say they should have two types of service. Commuter style all stations trains - current stock - and then 'Fast' services - Voyager/Meridian style stock.

 

[87019Chris]

Not sure if this has been asked already, but when the northern hub is complete will TPE receive all of London Midland's 350's and London Midland receive an new unit or will another unit be ordered for TPE?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not sure if this has been asked already, but when the northern hub is complete will TPE receive all of London Midland's 350's and London Midland receive an new unit or will another unit be ordered for TPE?

The TP future fleet is not decided yet.
It will probably be up to the new TP franchisee in 2016 to decide.
There is no plan to move LM's 350s to TP.
If TP gets new stock it is more likely their 350s will go to LM.
The next key date is Dec 2016 when the Airport-Blackpool service goes electric.
It's possible that the fleet for that will be 319s, as they will be becoming available in some numbers from Thameslink.

 

[Class377/5]

Not sure if this has been asked already, but when the northern hub is complete will TPE receive all of London Midland's 350's and London Midland receive an new unit or will another unit be ordered for TPE?

The plan unofficially was for TPE to get new units and the 350/4 to go to LM.

There's no point in giving TPE all the LM 350 as then you'll have to buy LM new units. Not to mention the fact that Siemens maintains the 350s so you'd have to build them a new depot facilities.

Better all round for TPE to get new stock. There will be a few offers to choose from with Siemens offering 380 or 700 variants and Bombardier offering Aventra mkII units as well as others.

Bottom line is no-one knows as no-ones actually decided on a plan yet.

 

[387star]

Is it increasingly likely the units will remain unbranded?

Apparently the 350s won't cover all scottish diagrams

And a 185 on the windermere branch is surely a waste of unit

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And a 185 on the windermere branch is surely a waste of unit

It certainly is, other than on the few services which extend South of Oxenholme. That's one problem I guess with the separation of TPE/Northern. Ideally the Windermere branch could be run with a 153, with a 156 doing the run on Weekends and during the Summer. Problem is, the through services (however many there might be) require 100mph stock for the WCML paths. Even if/when the branch is wired, it'll still be a problem. Along with Cardiff Bay; Barrow in Furness; the Conwy Valley; and the WSM HSTs, there's a few places on the network that will be presenting planners with something of a conundrum over the next few years!

 

[Manchester77]

Is it increasingly likely the units will remain unbranded?

Apparently the 350s won't cover all scottish diagrams

And a 185 on the windermere branch is surely a waste of unit

There will be a few Friday-Monday diagrams which will be 6 car 185s for when some diagrams which are usually be single 350s are doubled meaning that the 185s will fill in

 

[YorkshireBear]

It certainly is, other than on the few services which extend South of Oxenholme. That's one problem I guess with the separation of TPE/Northern. Ideally the Windermere branch could be run with a 153, with a 156 doing the run on Weekends and during the Summer. Problem is, the through services (however many there might be) require 100mph stock for the WCML paths. Even if/when the branch is wired, it'll still be a problem. Along with Cardiff Bay; Barrow in Furness; the Conwy Valley; and the WSM HSTs, there's a few places on the network that will be presenting planners with something of a conundrum over the next few years!

a 153 would probably not be enough in my experience.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Even if/when the branch is wired, it'll still be a problem. Along with Cardiff Bay; Barrow in Furness; the Conwy Valley; and the WSM HSTs, there's a few places on the network that will be presenting planners with something of a conundrum over the next few years!

Cardiff Bay isn't as much of a problem as some of the others. At least with Cardiff Bay there are also Cardiff - Coryton and Cardiff - Fairwater - Radyr services in the vacinity which could all utilise tram-train rolling stock. Some have suggested converted the whole valleys network to trams, but from my experience of Manchester Metrolink (often standing-room-only for much longer than I consider acceptable) I think hour-long (or getting near that) journies from the heads of the valleys into Cardiff need something with more seating capacity than trams,

 

[transmanche]

but from my experience of Manchester Metrolink (often standing-room-only for much longer than I consider acceptable) I think hour-long (or getting near that) journies from the heads of the valleys into Cardiff need something with more seating capacity than trams,

f course it all depends on how long the trams are...

Manchester Metrolink has 28m long trans. London Tramlink has 30m and 32m long trams. Melbourne's newest trams are over 33m long.

Of course, they may be more like T&W Metrocars and/or operate in multiple.

 

[jopsuk]

Edinburgh's trams are 48m long, longer than a Sprinter!

 

[Rhydgaled]

f course it all depends on how long the trams are...

I thought there was a limit to the length of trams due to them blocking roads. Metrolink ran theirs in pairs occasionally, but apparently running three in multiple wouldn't be allowed.

 

[edwin_m]

The length of trams (or of coupled pairs of trams) is limited in a particular city by factors such as maximum platform length and the spacing between road junctions. Places such as Budapest run trams more than 50m long.

However, a tram is likely to be more expensive than a train with the same floor area, because it is narrower and has various extra features for street running. So converting to light rail is unlikely to be justified unless either other costs can be reduced significantly (for example total tram conversion gets rid of signalling) or there is a benefit from being able to run off the railway to serve important destinations. Just running a few tram-trains on an existing railway is likely to be a waste of money.

 

[ModernRailways]

Is it increasingly likely the units will remain unbranded?

From what I've heard they will be painted eventually but the design is still being done. I also heard they want all the units to be delivered and tested before being painted, and once that is all done all the units will be painted within the space of a week.

 

[thealexweb]

a 153 would probably not be enough in my experience.

That would not be sufficient for peak time services.

Why don't TPE lobby to get clearance for Class 170s to be able to use the WCML and Windermere branch. It would be able to achieve the 100mph needed for the mainline and would only "waste" two coaches on the branch.

 

[transmanche]

Why don't TPE lobby to get clearance for Class 170s to be able to use the WCML and Windermere branch. It would be able to achieve the 100mph needed for the mainline and would only "waste" two coaches on the branch.

Most likely because it's cheaper and easier keeping things as they are. (The 170s are maintained in a depot over Wakefield way.)

 

[Bayum]

From what I've heard they will be painted eventually but the design is still being done. I also heard they want all the units to be delivered and tested before being painted, and once that is all done all the units will be painted within the space of a week.

Is that feasible?

 

[Techniquest]

Most likely because it's cheaper and easier keeping things as they are. (The 170s are maintained in a depot over Wakefield way.)

Crofton I do believe, indeed it is not far from Wakefield and a former depot of 222s back in Hull Trains' use of them.

As for painting 40 coaches in a week, that seems most implausible. Vinyl-ing them up, maybe but I doubt painting them all in that time could be done.

 

[Strathclyder]

Saw a pair of 350's pulling into Glasgow Central around 30 minutes ago. I was on the street below & couldn't make out the numbers. If anyone has the unit ID's & the working, I'd be most grateful.

 

[callum112233]

Saw a pair of 350's pulling into Glasgow Central around 30 minutes ago. I was on the street below & couldn't make out the numbers. If anyone has the unit ID's & the working, I'd be most grateful.

350401 & 350403 on 1S40 MIA-GLC

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Crofton I do believe, indeed it is not far from Wakefield and a former depot of 222s back in Hull Trains' use of them.

As for painting 40 coaches in a week, that seems most implausible. Vinyl-ing them up, maybe but I doubt painting them all in that time could be done.

Do any trains still get painted rather than vinyl-ed these days?

The 170s might be a better size for the lighter used services like Windermere, but I much prefer them to the 185s so I'd rather keep them on the Hull-Manchesters, thanks!

Speaking of which, this 'rumour' of them heading to Chiltern (mentioned on two other threads) better be just that. I'm fed up of the South East pulling the rug from under us up here! :roll: