New TPE Train Discussion

[swt_passenger]

Not unless the rules about passengers occupying the front third of the train above 110mph are relaxed.

There are no longer such rules. (You meant 'leading vehicle', rather than train above!)

They were amended out of the group standards some time ago. The requirements are phrased in terms of crashworthiness in the latest standards.

The rules applied to Pendolino and Voyager at the time did not apply to 395s for instance.

 

[The Ham]

Various people within NR are looking at what lines could be given line speed upgrades to make best use of 125mph DEMUs, ROSCO engineers are working to get running costs down if they'll only run at 100mph to 110mph, but it's fair to say there's a bit of panic going on if they can't place most of the Class 222 fleet with XC.

That leaves another 125mph DMU fleet really struggling to find a home post TransPennine North electrification, and I'd find it very difficult to believe a ROSCO has agreed to fund such a fleet knowing just how difficult it's going to be to place the stock when electrification completes.

I am of the view that XC may even look to replace some of their 22x's (problems at Dawlish in rough weather, problems with DMU fumes at New Street, lack of capacity, etc.).

Chiltern look likes a possible home for some, possibly Scotland, possibly SWT post electrification to Salisbury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

XC would seriously benefit from bi-mode Class 800s.

 

[L+Y]

Announcements, whether by DfT, TOCs or manufacturers, are often given in terms of the number of 'new carriages', usually recently when referring to EMUs for Southern, e.g.: http://www.southernrailway.com/sout...rriages-for-thameslink-rolling-stock-cascade/

Nothing much to read into that wording IMHO.

Yup, agreed that this is usually the case. It's just that in this specific announcement there was a reference to "carriages" in 2017 and "trains" in 2018 on the same page that struck me as a little odd.

 

[Greybeard33]

TransPennine North core route (Manchester to York) is provisionally booked to transfer to electric traction during the December 2022 timetable change, which takes us to pretty much the end of the 7 year TransPennine franchise (it runs to March 2023 initially), the actual planning for electrification, procurement of units/stock is to be undertaken by the incoming TransPennine franchisee, which is why they're ordering stock and introducing it into service prior to the end of the franchise.

What doesn't make any sense at all is that over the next 6 and a bit years, we're going to be electrifying the route, and with some new stock to be introduced by December 2018, just 4 years before the core route converts to electric traction, it makes no sense for that stock to be anything other than bi-mode, or to be an electric unit dragged for the first 4 years of its life.

If the first 13 new units were to be 125mph EMUs, dragged across the Pennines pending electrification, would it be feasible to attach/detach the locos at Manchester Victoria (and at York for the Newcastle services)?

 

[The Ham]

XC would seriously benefit from bi-mode Class 800s.

My thoughts, and why I have started a thread looking at possible locations where 22x's could be used if all the existing TOC's which use them no longer used them.

 

[notlob.divad]

If the first 13 new units were to be 125mph EMUs, dragged across the Pennines pending electrification, would it be feasible to attach/detach the locos at Manchester Victoria (and at York for the Newcastle services)?

The 13 new 125mph units coming in for EOY 2018 are timed with the start of the Liverpool to Glasgow Trains. I think they will therefore stay West of the Pennines covering the all electric Liverpool and Man Airport to Glasgow/Edinburgh via WCML diagrams rather than being attached an detached to Diesel Locos.

Pendalinos already cover 90% of that route and is reason 1 why I think 5 car

tilting stock, probably from Alstom,

as Philip says, is a pretty good shout.

Reason 2 as I pointed out above. Assuming the timescales are met Long Pendalino sets are going to be going spare sometime around 2022 2023, when the first HS2 trains start running. There will then be a refurbishment cascade program of these feeding into the next TPE franchise agreement to replace the bi-modes on Edinburgh via Newcastle when the wires are complete.

Alstrom's planned new Maintenance and build depot at Widnes is also a factor. If I was in the Dft making these decisions and a bidder came to me with that proposal, a plan for the future use of old stock, and a commitment of a new maintenance/build site with UK jobs, I don't think the minister would take much convincing to sign the deal off.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd commented in another thread about the stupidity of cascading a chunk of the 185 fleet away from TPE to be replaced with the new stock, when the majority of the remaining 185 operated services on the Huddersfield route will end up being single units in addition to having to pick up passengers from the withdrawn stoppers. Especially as there's no plans for where those cascaded units will go other than possibly a short-term loan to Northern. If the DfT persist with the deeply flawed plans regarding semi-fasts replacing stoppers then they need to ensure that there's enough capacity, and for almost all day outside of the very early morning and very late evening that means 6 car is essential. Yes, that means costs would rise but the alternative is people left behind and even more gridlock on the M62, A62 and more overcrowding on buses. It's time for Gideon to put his money where his mouth is with regard to the Powerhouse.

 

[Iskra]

I'd commented in another thread about the stupidity of cascading a chunk of the 185 fleet away from TPE to be replaced with the new stock, when the majority of the remaining 185 operated services on the Huddersfield route will end up being single units in addition to having to pick up passengers from the withdrawn stoppers. Especially as there's no plans for where those cascaded units will go other than possibly a short-term loan to Northern. If the DfT persist with the deeply flawed plans regarding semi-fasts replacing stoppers then they need to ensure that there's enough capacity, and for almost all day outside of the very early morning and very late evening that means 6 car is essential. Yes, that means costs would rise but the alternative is people left behind and even more gridlock on the M62, A62 and more overcrowding on buses. It's time for Gideon to put his money where his mouth is with regard to the Powerhouse.

I agree completely. I've just commented in another thread that I was on a 6-car working out of Leeds tonight and even that was full and standing, so TPE are going to need all the 185's they can get in my opinion.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Can't remember what was discussed up thread, but this extract from a job description for a new position within the new franchise says there are no fewer than 3 new train fleets!!!

 

[NotATrainspott]

So that appears to have blown the idea of a consistent AT300 fleet out of the water.

I wonder if the number of carriages is absolutely fixed. From a contractual perspective, it would be a bit silly to insist on a number of carriages which doesn't then take into account the length of each one. A five-car 26m design will have approximately the same furnishable length as a six-car 23m design such as a Pendolino, so if First haven't yet confirmed with the DfT what option they're going with it might not be out of the question for the number of carriages to increase. If Alstom were bidding with six-car trains and the others with five, it would be better for TPE and the DfT if they only publicise the five carriage number. Then the worst case scenario is that five carriage trains are bought, so no downgrade or disappointment, and the best case scenario is that they get to go around saying they're actually got X amount more carriages than they planned.

 

[Clarence Yard]

LHCS for one of the fleets it is then. The 221st vehicle is presumably a spare DBSO or whatever they are using as a driving coach.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

LHCS for one of the fleets it is then. The 221st vehicle is presumably a spare DBSO or whatever they are using as a driving coach.

It may depend on whether an AT300 order split between bi-mode and electric only is being considered as one or two train fleets, adding in additional EMU stock, say tilting stock for WCML, and that's potentially three fleets.

All getting very confused, as I've said previously, the delayed Electrification RUS and absence of a defined rolling electrification program is now looking to be having a material impact on rolling stock procurement. Not good at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And on that background, the advantage of LHCS would be that if there isn't electrification, you just carry on with a diesel locomotive, but if there is you can replace it with an electric one.

I'm not suggesting loco changes en-route, more just a fleet swap.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I think we are now looking at bi-mode, straight electric and LHCS for the three fleets.

I can't see tilt being involved at all.

 

[Haydn1971]

"No fewer than three new fleets" is that the same as three or more ?

 

[Class 170101]

Various people within NR are looking at what lines could be given line speed upgrades to make best use of 125mph DEMUs, ROSCO engineers are working to get running costs down if they'll only run at 100mph to 110mph, but it's fair to say there's a bit of panic going on if they can't place most of the Class 222 fleet with XC.

Project Thor is looking even more sensible by the day :cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But what about the first 13 125mph units, which are for TPE North and so cannot be EMUs, and are not described as bi-mode, but are for delivery in 2017-18?

I thought these had already been decided here that it would using the follow on order from the AT300s placed by GWR for their London to Cornwall services?

 

[Greybeard33]

The 13 new 125mph units coming in for EOY 2018 are timed with the start of the Liverpool to Glasgow Trains. I think they will therefore stay West of the Pennines covering the all electric Liverpool and Man Airport to Glasgow/Edinburgh via WCML diagrams rather than being attached an detached to Diesel Locos.

No, the DfT's timeline specifically says that at EOY 2018:

13 new 125mph trains (65 carriages) all in service on North Trans-Pennine route

then at EOY 2019:

12 new electric trains (60 EMU carriages) all in service on Anglo-Scottish services

and finally at EOY 2020:

19 new 125mph bi-mode trains (95 carriages) all in service on Liverpool - Edinburgh and Manchester Airport - Newcastle services.

I guess some of the EMUs will have to be delivered before Dec 2018 to enable the Liverpool - Glasgow via WCML service to start, with the 350s progressively replaced during 2019. Liverpool - Edinburgh is to be via the ECML not WCML and does not start until Dec 2019.

 

[sprinterguy]

"No fewer than three new fleets" is that the same as three or more ?

Each of the 44 trains will in fact be different. They'll have one HST, one 442, one 90+Mk 3, etc. Then they'll race them.

Doesn't seem much more far-fetched than a lot of the speculation to date...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reason 2 as I pointed out above. Assuming the timescales are met Long Pendalino sets are going to be going spare sometime around 2022 2023, when the first HS2 trains start running.

You're optimistic, High Speed 2 isn't due to become operational until 2026 at the earliest. Plus the likely reduction in the high frequency 3tph West Coast services to quite possibly 2tph, and potential slowing of services to accommodate more stops and create more consistent pathing profiles for a matrix of semi-fast services, isn't likely to release a large tranche of Pendolinos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd commented in another thread about the stupidity of cascading a chunk of the 185 fleet away from TPE to be replaced with the new stock, when the majority of the remaining 185 operated services on the Huddersfield route will end up being single units in addition to having to pick up passengers from the withdrawn stoppers.

I think that First would have been hard pushed to come up with a viable business case that considered retaining all of the 185s alongside 220 new carriages. Also, has it been confirmed that the twice-hourly Huddersfield 185 services will be single units? With 29 units still to play with, the South TPE unit requirement doesn't seem especially demanding, even with doubling up through the core Manchester - Sheffield section.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

LHCS for one of the fleets it is then. The 221st vehicle is presumably a spare DBSO or whatever they are using as a driving coach.

It would seem that way.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would seem absolute confirmation that one of the fleets is LHCS.

Shame it's not all of it in a way - it would give the ultimate flexibility to re-form when things get too busy...

 

[northwichcat]

I think that First would have been hard pushed to come up with a viable business case that considered retaining all of the 185s alongside 220 new carriages. Also, has it been confirmed that the twice-hourly Huddersfield 185 services will be single units? With 29 units still to play with, the South TPE unit requirement doesn't seem especially demanding, even with doubling up through the core Manchester - Sheffield section.

There might be a problem with allowing 6 carriages at stations like Marsden. The original plan was to use the 170s on the 'semi-fasts' pre-electrification with platform lengthening to allow 96m formations included in Network Rail's CP5 plans so 4 car 170 workings would have been possible.

Hull's currently 5 diagrams but the service will be slowed down as they'll be more station calls so I think probably 10 diagrams will be needed for Manchester-Leeds and Manchester-Hull.

South TPE is 8 diagrams, strengthen Piccadilly-Sheffield only will need a minimum of 3 units (presuming existing timings are kept.)

At least 10% of units wouldn't be diagrammed to be in service on any day so that appears to leave around 5 further units available for service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So that appears to have blown the idea of a consistent AT300 fleet out of the water.

Tony Miles said a few weeks ago two different manufacturers will be involved with at least two different type of trains (stressing the 'at least'.)

I suggested on here that may mean using the AT300 add-on option as well as something else for North TPE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And on that background, the advantage of LHCS would be that if there isn't electrification, you just carry on with a diesel locomotive, but if there is you can replace it with an electric one.

I'm not suggesting loco changes en-route, more just a fleet swap.

Maybe bi-mode multiple units for the services which can make the most use of overheads and diesel loco for the others. Then post-electrification switch the sets around to put bi-mode on Middlesbrough/Scarborough services and switch the diesel locos for electric locos?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I guess some of the EMUs will have to be delivered before Dec 2018 to enable the Liverpool - Glasgow via WCML service to start, with the 350s progressively replaced during 2019. Liverpool - Edinburgh is to be via the ECML not WCML and does not start until Dec 2019.

Worth noting the 350/4 lease currently expires in the autumn of 2018.

 

[notlob.divad]

You're optimistic, High Speed 2 isn't due to become operational until 2026 at the earliest. Plus the likely reduction in the high frequency 3tph West Coast services to quite possibly 2tph, and potential slowing of services to accommodate more stops and create more consistent pathing profiles for a matrix of semi-fast services, isn't likely to release a large tranche of Pendolinos.

My points are all being refuted. 2026 that would be 2 years after the end of the new franchise, or 1 if the extension is taken. We still don't have a final date for the TPE improvements and electrification to be complete. But I was 'assuming' a similar timescale.

 

[Philip]

Hull currently needs 4 diagrams and Cleethorpes needs 7. Cleethorpes will remain that way, as you say 3 diagrams to strengthen the core route. Hull will need another diagram to accomodate the extra stops and the Leeds shuttle will need 3 diagrams. With 29 units it'll require 4 diagrams for maintenance. That occupies 22 unit diagrams in total so 7 more to strengthen North TPE semi-fasts. Let's say 3 diagrams to strengthen all the Leeds shuttles, so another 4 would strengthen all but 1 of the Hull diagrams.

 

[northwichcat]

Hull currently needs 4 diagrams and Cleethorpes needs 7.

I miscounted Cleethorpes. I was previously told while Hull could be worked with 4 it isn't as it means very tight turnarounds at both Piccadilly and Hull meaning delays can't be recovered, so the units sit for 66 minutes at Hull opposed to 6 minutes, hence using 5 diagrams.

 

[Philip]

I miscounted Cleethorpes. I was previously told while Hull could be worked with 4 it isn't as it means very tight turnarounds at both Piccadilly and Hull meaning delays can't be recovered, so the units sit for 66 minutes at Hull opposed to 6 minutes, hence using 5 diagrams.

They ought to be able to use those 66 minutes to allow for extra stops, so 5 should still be enough diagrams. Actually 4 diagrams will be needed to strengthen all MIA-SHF services, having thought about it. So looking at 2 of 5 Hull diagrams working as single units which isn't bad in itself, that should strengthen just about all peak time services. Would it be feasible to just double up between Manchester and Leeds, with regular attaching and detaching at Leeds?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Maybe it'll be loco-hauled EMUs rather than coaching stock? I can't think of any reason why a ROSCO would want to fund any new coaching stock (other than the sleeper), and if they did it would be end doored stock which would be less than suitable for TP North. Since each sleeper carriage costs about the same as an EMU carriage, there couldn't be a lot of cost saving by going with just LHCS and in the long term, it might be a challenge finding anywhere for those carriages to go once every route goes multiple-unit only. If no more 68s need to be built to drag them than would end up being built anyway, then it may well be a more economical option for the short term to swallow the extra track access cost.

 

[northwichcat]

They ought to be able to use those 66 minutes to allow for extra stops, so 5 should still be enough diagrams.

It'll depend how the paths work. TPE will have to time Victoria-York to be roughly every 15 minutes and then time the semi-fasts to run behind the Liverpool-York services to give Piccadilly-Huddersfield roughly every 15 minutes (the other Piccadilly services being the ex.Airport services.) Although they should have the flexibility to be able to have diagrams which do Hull-Piccadilly-Leeds-Piccadilly-Hull if it's more efficient.

 

[Haydn1971]

Class 68's ? Hmm... 99mph Max speed

Hauling the first batch of Mk4's discarded by VTEC ?

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe it'll be loco-hauled EMUs rather than coaching stock? I can't think of any reason why a ROSCO would want to fund any new coaching stock (other than the sleeper), and if they did it would be end doored stock which would be less than suitable for TP North.

Do we have to keep bringing up door positions every time anything is mooted for TPE? If end doors aren't suitable for the new Intercity services between Liverpool and Edinburgh via York, then a lot of Virgin and XC services are being operated with inappropriate carriages.