Future Northern Rail

[WestCoast]

And they dump the worst of their stock in the north east where (especially because of Tyne and Wear's disinterest), there's no PTE to nag them.

Did they inherit a rolling stock problem? Yes. Do they treat all parts of their region equally with the stock they have? No.

The North West isn't exactly brimming with great stock. Heaton has the more comfortable 142s (with high backed seating as refurbished by Northern Spirit), the North Western depots have 142s with rock hard Mersey seating or bus benches. The comfort difference is substantial. Plus, Heaton has decent 156s.

Yorkshire does the best in terms of the standard of the stock in my opinion. Neville Hill has got units like 333s, 321s, 322s, 155s, 158s and 144s (best of the pacers).

Lancashire/Cheshire/Cumbria has 142s (bus benches), 150s (some really are dire), 153s, 156s and 323s (only limited).

 

[tbtc]

The North West isn't exactly brimming with great stock. Heaton has the more comfortable 142s (with high backed seating as refurbished by Northern Spirit), the North Western depots have 142s with rock hard Mersey seating or bus benches. The comfort difference is substantial. Plus, Heaton has decent 156s.

Yorkshire does the best for stock in my opinion. It's got units like 333s, 321s. 322s, 155s. 158s and 144s (best of the pacers).

Lancashire/Cheshire/Cumbria has 142s (bus benches), 150s (some really are dire), 153s, 156s and 323s (only limited).

Its interesting how the three areas of Northern all think they get the "worst" deal ("Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East")...

For example, you describe the 17x 323s as "only limited", yet thats still a lot more than the 7x 155s or the 3x 321s (as many 321s as the 180s which you didn't list) or the number of three coach 144s.

Plus there are plenty 142s in Yorkshire (as well as 153s, some of which run in single formation), whilst the Yorkshire 158s spend some of their time in Lancashire (Burnley - Blackburn - Preston - Blackpool, Rochdale - Manchester?).

 

[northwichcat]

17x 323s as "only limited", yet thats still a lot more than the 7x 155s

The 7x155s are only limited by crew knowledge. The 323s are limited to a few electrified lines.

whilst the Yorkshire 158s spend some of their time in Lancashire (Burnley - Blackburn - Preston - Blackpool, Rochdale - Manchester?).

The Calder Vale services 158s appear on are the ones which are busiest at the Leeds end - where the 3 car 158s which DfT allocated for Blackpool services also appear. The ones that are busiest at the Manchester end are mainly 142+150 or 142+153.

3x 321s (as many 321s as the 180s)

The 180s were only supposed to be with Northern for a few months. It's delays with cascades that have extended this. They will be replaced by 142s and 150s later this year.

West Yorks will have 8x32xs very soon.

Its interesting how the three areas of Northern all think they get the "worst" deal ("Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East")

Well Northern cover Cheshire, Cumbria and bits of the North Midlands that you haven't mentioned and really you should split up Northern more than that. East Yorkshire is usually Pacer and 150 free, meaning they have the best diesel stock overall. However, 333s in West Yorkshire are much newer than 158s but Pacers exist there, while South Yorkshire gets the Pacers but gets very few electric trains which are mainly 321s not 333s.

Also, having the nicest trains doesn't mean everyone gets a seat so there can still be complaints.

 

[WestCoast]

Personally, I reckon West Yorkshire does the best overall. They have almighty Metro, who are "in bed with Northern". They have low fares aswell.

The competition about "the worst stock" is hilarious, typical Northern Rail. Anywhere else, they would be competing on the best stock!!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Personally, I reckon West Yorkshire does the best overall. They have almighty Metro, who are "in bed with Northern". They have low fares aswell.

The competition about "the worst stock" is hilarious, typical Northern Rail. Anywhere else, they would be competing on the best stock!!

i dont reckon its a competition worth fighting for. Leeds does get a very good deal.
However i do not feel sheffield does. Every single local train (bar sporadic 150's) are pacers. 158's on longer distance to leeds and bridlington. Not too clever. Not the worst but SYPTE are definitely not in bed with northern like WYPTE are.

 

[tbtc]

The 7x155s are only limited by crew knowledge. The 323s are limited to a few electrified lines

They are a lot less limited than the 333s though, since Lancashire electrification currently allows EMUs to run from Manchester to Glossop/ Stoke/ Crewe (whilst the 333s are really only really one area around Shipley - they are very very rarely seen in Doncaster). Plus, of course, there's a big expansion in electrification west of the Pennines to come...

This thread is turning into a Monty Python sketch...

 

[northwichcat]

They are a lot less limited than the 333s though, since Lancashire electrification currently allows EMUs to run from Manchester to Glossop/ Stoke/ Crewe (whilst the 333s are really only really one area around Shipley - they are very very rarely seen in Doncaster).

Come December they'll be 96 EMU vehicles in the Leeds area and 51 in the Manchester area so EMUs can't be all that limited in Yorkshire if they can make use of 96 vehicles!

 

[TUC]

Its interesting how the three areas of Northern all think they get the "worst" deal ("Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East")...

For example, you describe the 17x 323s as "only limited", yet thats still a lot more than the 7x 155s or the 3x 321s (as many 321s as the 180s which you didn't list) or the number of three coach 144s.

Plus there are plenty 142s in Yorkshire (as well as 153s, some of which run in single formation), whilst the Yorkshire 158s spend some of their time in Lancashire (Burnley - Blackburn - Preston - Blackpool, Rochdale - Manchester?).

I think the issue is probably more that the areas other than the north east do have some lines where better stock is used whereas the north east doesn't seem to have any.

 

[WestCoast]

I think the issue is probably more that the areas other than the north east do have some lines where better stock is used whereas the north east doesn't seem to have any.

156s are good in Northern terms, a marked improvement on pacers and earlier sprinters (150s, 153s). When the 3 180s are banished from the North West, they will also be the best DMUs operating wholly within the region.

The North East is a difficult one, as it doesn't have strong links to neigbouring operating areas (except at Carlisle). In fact, you could argue that the operating area should be given to another franchise, so Northern could concentrate on its core operating areas.

 

[sprinterguy]

I used to think that the north east area was downtrodden compared to the other regions of the Reggie Railways North East and North West areas, but when you consider the bigger picture, it's no worse off than any of the other areas: Half of Heatons' 142 diagrams are actually in Yorkshire, primarily radiating from Sheffield. And at least peak time trains out of Newcastle aren't generally as rammed as those out of Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool.

There's always a worry that with the North East being a group of satellite communities out on a limb removed from the focus of Northern operations that the area will simply be forgotten about, but the North East has a mix of 156s and the most comfortable of the 142s (Okay, I know that's not saying much). It would be nice if Nexus were to show more active interest in the local rail services instead of playing with its' Metro all the time (Some three car trains would be nice: Once Pacer replacement gets rolling then 156s strengthened with 153s and the twenty three 144s shifting to Heaton would be nice, and fairly realistic), but overall things could be worse.

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

Well Northern cover Cheshire, Cumbria and bits of the North Midlands that you haven't mentioned and really you should split up Northern more than that. East Yorkshire is usually Pacer and 150 free, meaning they have the best diesel stock overall. However, 333s in West Yorkshire are much newer than 158s but Pacers exist there, while South Yorkshire gets the Pacers but gets very few electric trains which are mainly 321s not 333s.

Also, having the nicest trains doesn't mean everyone gets a seat so there can still be complaints.

Splitting Northern into the three areas of "Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East" seems completely rational to me, as Northern is built principally on the old Regional Railways North West and North East areas which were very much separate entities, and the north east is a satellite to the rest of Northerns' operations. If you split it down any more, you start to get down to the level of comparison on an individual route by route basis, which only goes to prove that all the areas have fairly major imbalances of the rough and the smooth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any option that gets the north east and Cumbria services some real love and attention wold get my vote. Northern seem to be almost exclusively focused on their PTE services (and Tyne and Wear don't really cout in this regard since there's only the one route). I think that a better arrangement would be to put the Manchester/West Yorks services into one frachise and to split the Cumbria, north east and Lincs/Notts services between the east coast, cross-country and TPE franchises. In a strange way I think they would get more attention as the routes would be feeders for these companies wider routes and so there would be an incentive to invest in them..

So a "Lancashire & Yorkshire" TOC and a "North Eastern Railway" TOC: Goes to show that the old ways of doing things were the best...

There's definitely plenty of merit in creating a "Super PTE" based franchise stretching across the four centrally located PTE areas in the Northern area, heck, it would also neatly accomodate the Transpennine franchise. However I am then concerned that the areas that were "hived off", so the North East and the Cumbrian services for starters, would be subject to little attention and investment as part of other larger franchises with bigger concerns than the little local trains of the north, while the "Lancashire & Yorkshire" Super PTE operator would be noisily and influentially braying for new rolling stock and getting all the attention.

 

[Lampshade]

Plus there are plenty 142s in Yorkshire (as well as 153s, some of which run in single formation), whilst the Yorkshire 158s spend some of their time in Lancashire (Burnley - Blackburn - Preston - Blackpool, Rochdale - Manchester?).

That was short sightedness on the part of the DfT. Blackpool - Bradford (as was) should have gone to TPE, but instead they transferred NWRR express services (Barrow/Windermere/Blackpool - Manchester Airport) to TPE instead - when they're not even trans-Pennine routes.

Merging NWRR and RRNE was a mistake because it was inevitable that the incumbent TOC would 'favour' one area over the others - how else would you explain Northern transferring NH's 158s to NL and replacing them with 150s when both depots had managed perfectly well from 1997 - 2004?

 

[northwichcat]

Splitting Northern into the three areas of "Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East" seems completely rational to me, as Northern is built principally on the old Regional Railways North West and North East areas which were very much separate entities

RRNE included the original TPE, while RRNW included the NW TPE routes and the North Wales Coast, so they aren't really relevant now so many routes have been moved between franchises.

Also the traditional "Lancashire" boundary ends at Levenshulme and East Didsbury so does not include Stockport and Manchester Airport and excludes quite a few parliamentary routes: Stockport-Stalybridge, Ellesmere Port-Helsby and Chester-Runcorn.

 

[sprinterguy]

RRNE included the original TPE, while RRNW included the NW TPE routes and the North Wales Coast, so they aren't really relevant now so many routes have been moved between franchises.

Also the traditional "Lancashire" boundary ends at Levenshulme and East Didsbury so does not include Stockport and Manchester Airport and excludes quite a few parliamentary routes: Stockport-Stalybridge, Ellesmere Port-Helsby and Chester-Runcorn.

The bulk of the old Regional Railways North West and North East areas are still incorporated into the current franchise though. It doesn't matter if they are referred to as "Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East" or as "West", "East" and "North East", it's still a convenient way to break down the various definitive areas of the Northern franchise rather than being strictly geographically accurate.

 

[tbtc]

The bulk of the old Regional Railways North West and North East areas are still incorporated into the current franchise though. It doesn't matter if they are referred to as "Lancashire", "Yorkshire" and "North East" or as "West", "East" and "North East", it's still a convenient way to break down the various definitive areas of the Northern franchise rather than being strictly geographically accurate.

Agreed, otherwise we start splitting hairs about local Government re-organisations etc.

I think its clear to most people what constitutes Yorkshire/ Lancashire/ North East (without me needing to state that Yorkshire includes the unitary authority of Kingston upon Hull, parts of northern Lincolnshire etc, whilst Whitby is "North East" in railway terms rather than Yorkshire...).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That was short sightedness on the part of the DfT. Blackpool - Bradford (as was) should have gone to TPE, but instead they transferred NWRR express services (Barrow/Windermere/Blackpool - Manchester Airport) to TPE instead - when they're not even trans-Pennine routes

I agree.

Manchester Airport - Blackpool/ Barrow/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh had nothing to do with "Trans Pennine" travel, whilst York - Blackpool clearly does.

If the logic was that "all Manchester Airport services should go to TPE" then why not the Liverpool/ Southport ones too?

 

[WestCoast]

Manchester Airport - Blackpool/ Barrow/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh had nothing to do with "Trans Pennine" travel, whilst York - Blackpool clearly does.

If the logic was that "all Manchester Airport services should go to TPE" then why not the Liverpool/ Southport ones too?

You're right, it makes no sense whatsoever. Blackpool - York should be a TPE route, Manchester - Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere should be Northern and Manchester - Scotland should be Virgin/XC.

The name TransPennine Express does raise a few eyebrows on those routes! Although, of course, TPE North West benefits from more modern stock than Northern could provide.

 

[tbtc]

The North East is a difficult one, as it doesn't have strong links to neigbouring operating areas (except at Carlisle). In fact, you could argue that the operating area should be given to another franchise, so Northern could concentrate on its core operating areas.

I've argued that in the past, its got nothing to do with the rest of Northern (bar a couple of Newcastle - Carlisle services which run through to Whitehaven etc) - its got more to do with ScotRail in fact!

If TPE stays as a separate franchise then I'd see logic in giving the Whitby/ Chathill/ Bishop Auckland/ Carlisle services to TPE. Maybe even to East Coast?

The danger is that I go down a slippery slope of giving all of Northern's "Lancashire" services to the West Coast TOC (and so on, and so on) and you end up with the LMS (and other regions) making a comeback...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're right, it makes no sense whatsoever. Blackpool - York should be a TPE route, Manchester - Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere should be Northern and Manchester - Scotland should be Virgin/XC.

The name TransPennine Express does raise a few eyebrows on that route!

+1

If only you were at the DFT

 

[Lampshade]

The name TransPennine Express does raise a few eyebrows on those routes! Although, of course, TPE North West benefits from more modern stock than Northern could provide.

Marginally, pre-2004 Manchester Airport - Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere were all 175 operated, which was new stock under FNW, also Manchester Airport - Liverpool was 158 operated.

 

[WestCoast]

Marginally, pre-2004 Manchester Airport - Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere were all 175 operated, which was new stock under FNW, also Manchester Airport - Liverpool was 158 operated.

What I meant was compared to what Northern could currently offer, the best being 3-car 158s (or 3 180s until December), which would have to be stolen from Blackpool - York.

The Manchester - Barrow/Blackpool/Windermere were indeed operated by 158s/175s, and TPE continued to lease 175s from ATW for their North Western routes.

If the routes were transferred to Northern, they would have to retain the same standard of stock as currently.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the logic was that "all Manchester Airport services should go to TPE" then why not the Liverpool/ Southport ones too?

I can imagine that Class 185 units on the Manchester Airport to Southport service being estatically received by regular commuters on that route in comparison to the units currently provided to rail passengers.

 

[tbtc]

I can imagine that Class 185 units on the Manchester Airport to Southport service being estatically received by regular commuters on that route in comparison to the units currently provided to rail passengers.

I'm sure.

But why was Manchester Airport - Blackpool considered "Transpennine" (whilst Manchester Airport - Southport wasn't)?

(not that they ordered enough 185s for all TPE services anyway - hence the 170s - so there wouldn't be any for Southport nowadays, of course)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm sure(not that they ordered enough 185s for all TPE services anyway - hence the 170s - so there wouldn't be any for Southport nowadays, of course)

You appear to have answered your own question with regard to First TPE not having the Manchester Airport to Southport service....no stock to run this service.

 

[dk1]

Sorry but a tad off topic. Waiting for the 19.25 Driffield to Hull last night, after it got to 19.30 i checked with my mobile & realised it was cancelled. Couldnt have picked a worse train (apart from the last one) as their was a 93 minute gap to the next after an almost half-hourly service. Didnt overley bother me as went for a few more beers in the excellent station pub & then a bite to eat in the equally excellent & new Wetherspoons.

Just wondered if Northern use a replacement bus as usually happens on NXEA (too often!!). The 7 regular passengers seemed suprised that no tannoy announcement was made. The next 20.58 class 158 was very full & then heaving from Beverley. Everyone though seemed to drunk to care much.

 

[tbtc]

You appear to have answered your own question with regard to First TPE not having the Manchester Airport to Southport service....no stock to run this service.

No.

When TPE was set up as a "stand alone" service it took over

• Services run by ATN with 158s
• Services run by FNW with 158s and 175s

These were meant to be replaced by 60x 4 car DMUs. In the end we got 51x 3 car 185s, with scope to add a fourth coach/ acquire additional units. Then nothing happened and no more 185s could be built (due to new regs) - hence ending up with the two coach 170s.

There was no reason for some services being included or other services not being included - if Manchester Airport - Liverpool/ Southport were part of the franchise in 2004 then additional 185s would have been ordered.

Similarly there's no real reason why the services through Chorley were included in TPE - you could argue that if these busy profitable routes were part of Northern then there'd have been more incentive for Northern to invest in newer longer trains (which would have benefitted other routes too).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is why matters are so confusing to me, not being an expert in rail matters as some forum members obviously are, but having a keen interest in railway matters.

A couple of months ago, I queried if First TPE had any stock to use to run one extra service at peak time on a very busy existing route and I was ridiculed for making such a suggestion and I was informed that First TPE had absolutely no spare stock at all.

Yet when I use that very same argument of "no stock" for First TPE to run a Manchester Airport to Southport service, I am again told that I am wrong.

Life is very confusing in logic terms these days....:roll:

 

[tbtc]

This is why matters are so confusing to me, not being an expert in rail matters as some forum members obviously are, but having a keen interest in railway matters.

A couple of months ago, I queried if First TPE had any stock to use to run one extra service at peak time on a very busy existing route and I was ridiculed for making such a suggestion and I was informed that First TPE had absolutely no spare stock at all.

Yet when I use that very same argument of "no stock" for First TPE to run a Manchester Airport to Southport service, I am again told that I am wrong.

Life is very confusing in logic terms these days....:roll:

Do First have spare stock to run additional services today? No.

However, if the TPE franchise (which started in 2004) had included other lines (e.g. Southport - Manchester Airport, Blackpool - York) then they'd have ordered more than 51x 185s - presumably enough trains to run all the services the franchise...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, if the TPE franchise (which started in 2004) had included other lines (e.g. Southport - Manchester Airport, Blackpool - York) then they'd have ordered more than 51x 185s - presumably enough trains to run all the services the franchise...

A good night's sleep puts things back into perspective. I thank you for your futher clarification.

When the Northern franchaise was let under the "no growth" principal, would the Manchester Airport to Southport route be seen as falling into that category based upon passenger useage at that time whereas the Manchester Airport to Liverpool route, because of the growing airline passenger numbers using Manchester Airport, may have been viewed somewhat differently.

Still, all this is now historical. Both the Northern and the First TPE franchaises are coming to their time expiration period and I am sure that the "no growth" principle will not be entering into the equation this time, whatever the new franchaise becomes in terms of both area and routes. Perhaps the correct amount of rolling stock based on actual useage/demand will be taken into consideration, subject to availability and dare I say, new stock ordering, or the usual cascadation from other areas actually obtaining new stock who would then wish to divest themselves of such redundant stock after their new units arrive.

 

[northwichcat]

But why was Manchester Airport - Blackpool considered "Transpennine" (whilst Manchester Airport - Southport wasn't)?

At the time the other Blackpool route was Buxton-Blackpool, which would have made sense as a TPE route with the Buxton line actually being in the Pennines. However, making that an express route would have meant Airport-Blackpool would have needed to do all stops.

I think Airport-Blackpool went to TPE simply because it was a 175 route and the Welsh Assembly had bagged all the 175s so something was needed to replace the 175s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

then they'd have ordered more than 51x 185s - presumably enough trains to run all the services the franchise...

TPE ordered 60 x 3 car 185s with the option for 60 extra centre carriages to follow. DfT cut it back to 51 x 3 car 185s plus 9 refurbished 170s.

Had the order of 60 gone ahead then it could have meant 9 extra 158s or 170s for EMT or/and Northern.

 

[tbtc]

I think Airport-Blackpool went to TPE simply because it was a 175 route and the Welsh Assembly had bagged all the 175s so
something was needed to replace the 175s

Sounds likely

TPE ordered 60 x 3 car 185s with the option for 60 extra centre carriages to follow. DfT cut it back to 51 x 3 car 185s plus 9 refurbished 170s.

Had the order of 60 gone ahead then it could have meant 9 extra 158s or 170s for EMT or/and Northern.

True. 60x 4 car 185s would have made things so much easier.

 

[YorkshireBear]

True. 60x 4 car 185s would have made things so much easier.

I cant imagine how good life would be if we had them, Although you couldnt double them up anywhere then could you? So a mix may have been better.

 

[tbtc]

I cant imagine how good life would be if we had them, Although you couldnt double them up anywhere then could you? So a mix may have been better.

They don't double up many, apart from the "four coach" 170s on some Hull duties and the "six coach" 185s on the handful of services which split at Preston.

Hull wouldn't need doubling up if all 185s were four coach, but I don't know whether *all* platforms between Manchester Airport and Preston could cope with eight coaches.