New TPE Train Discussion

[Whistler40145]

Would new DBSOs have to built or could the ex Virgin West Coast ones be modified if there's any available?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

New ones will be built.

 

[Whistler40145]

Cheers Neil.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[HSTEd]

Why not go for a BO-BO wheel arrangement? Even better, just buy some UK Traxx.

Because Co-Co enables superior tractive effort, and the ability to have a heavier locomotive will enable more installed power.
We need loco hauled trains with EMU-alike performance.

Buying more questionably useful Bo-Bos is not helpful.
And since universal locomotives are still practical with electrics, it would be nice to have some proper freight haul-capable locomotives, rather tha the rather anemic Class 90s.

10,000hp would be the minimum power target I think.


Also the question then becomes, how much does adding one electric locomotive and one newbuild DVT/DBSO to this existing order cost?
Each locomotive/DBSO is equivalent to a new EMU of five or six carriages, since we have lots of Mark 3s and Mark 4s at scrap value soon.

Sure the lifespan is shorter, but I imagine the capital cost is much lower.
So it might come out worthwhile, even for 15 years at most.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

As mentioned already the stations that will need lengthening on the north route are Chester le street, Yarm, seamer, Warrington central, Liverpool south parkway and St Helens junction, with platform work at Malton needed to upgrade the rest of the platform and Newcastle will need platform use rejigging.

Warrington and parkway will become diversionary but their lengths currently preclude 6 car working and need upgrade anyway even if TPE drop those stations

 

[northwichcat]

As mentioned already the stations that will need lengthening on the north route are Chester le street, Yarm, seamer, Warrington central, Liverpool south parkway and St Helens junction, with platform work at Malton needed to upgrade the rest of the platform and Newcastle will need platform use rejigging.

Warrington and parkway will become diversionary but their lengths currently preclude 6 car working and need upgrade anyway even if TPE drop those stations

As mentioned up thread 6 car platforms at Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington Central were included in the Network Rail CP5 delivery plan. With the route transferring to Northern who are going to use 2 and 3 car CAF DMUs there's probably more chance of 6 car workings than if it had remained with TPE (who will use 5 car sets on all services between Liverpool and York.)

 

[gimmea50anyday]

5+1 wouldn't fit anyway due to signal positions at Warrington so even if it remained on TPE the platforms would still need lengthening. It's a chew on as it is locking doors out and officially the emergency platforms aren't authorised for use

 

[notlob.divad]

If the long term plan is loco+5, that should fit at all stations between Liverpool and York via Chat Moss that the service is likely to call at, being presumably no longer than 2x185.

However the plan is that when the Hitachi Bi-modes arrive they will switch to the semi-fast service which will by its nature stop at smaller platforms. I agree in this case, they will have taken it into account otherwise they wouldn't have done it. But rather than the flexibility that may be provided by uncoupling and re-coupling carriages to change capacity. You still have the restriction of total platform length with an added restriction of the unusable space taken up by the Locomotive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They can be adapted to EMU very easily. Shove them in fixed formation, and shove an electric locomotive on the end. Really not hard - it's exactly how DB and SBB tend to operate these days. You couldn't dynamically split and join, but it's probably workable just to use them as the long trains.

That isn't really the point I was making. Yes you can couple an Electric Loco and have them run from the wires, but that still leaves you with the Loco taking up platform space. My point was if the carriages are designed to be EMU shells with all the space for transformers, powered bogies pantographs, etc already included in the design, so that all the electrical gubbins could be added to the carriages later. Combining that with an extra end unit instead if the Electric Loco and you have increased the capacity of each train by 1/5th for the same(ish) platform length, and your Electric Locos can focus on what they are perfect for, Hauling freight services around the country rather than taking up valuable platform real estate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That isn't really the point I was making. Yes you can couple an Electric Loco and have them run from the wires, but that still leaves you with the Loco taking up platform space. My point was if the carriages are designed to be EMU shells with all the space for transformers, powered bogies pantographs, etc already included in the design, so that all the electrical gubbins could be added to the carriages later. Combining that with an extra end unit instead if the Electric Loco and you have increased the capacity of each train by 1/5th for the same(ish) platform length, and your Electric Locos can focus on what they are perfect for, Hauling freight services around the country rather than taking up valuable platform real estate.

There is no significant shortage of platform real-estate at the stations served by a via Bolton WCML service, other than Manchester Oxford Road which could simply be omitted - all the relevant stations will happily take a 2+7 HST. Move the 5-car EMUs onto a wired TransPennine service, put the LHCS onto the WCML. Problem solved.

 

[Harbornite]

Not sure which post you are replying to, but if we are talking about DVTs or DBSOs (or T&T for that matter) the control wiring has to run the length of the coaches with jumper cables so that the un-powered cab can pretend to be (or if T&T act as) another loco in multiple. I think that TDM working through the old 12 (24?)-volt train lighting system is dead now.

What I think he means is that there must be a reason why CAF can't build the DBSOs/DVT's at the same time as the conventional coaches, which would get rid of the need for T and T.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because Co-Co enables superior tractive effort, and the ability to have a heavier locomotive will enable more installed power.
We need loco hauled trains with EMU-alike performance.

Buying more questionably useful Bo-Bos is not helpful.
And since universal locomotives are still practical with electrics, it would be nice to have some proper freight haul-capable locomotives, rather tha the rather anemic Class 90s.

10,000hp would be the minimum power target I think.


Also the question then becomes, how much does adding one electric locomotive and one newbuild DVT/DBSO to this existing order cost?
Each locomotive/DBSO is equivalent to a new EMU of five or six carriages, since we have lots of Mark 3s and Mark 4s at scrap value soon.

Sure the lifespan is shorter, but I imagine the capital cost is much lower.
So it might come out worthwhile, even for 15 years at most.

I'm not sure if co-co's are necessary. European passenger and freight operations are dominated by bo-bos, with some co-co designs in use. There isn't a massive drop in performance, hence why we have powerful bo-bo's in the form of the Class 68's and 88's.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure if co-co's are necessary. European passenger and freight operations are dominated by bo-bos, with some co-co designs in use. There isn't a massive drop in performance, hence why we have powerful bo-bo's in the form of the Class 68's and 88's.

That depends on what kind of performance you want.
If you want LHCS trains that fit into an EMU operated railway, you need all the tractive effort you can get.

 

[Harbornite]

That depends on what kind of performance you want.
If you want LHCS trains that fit into an EMU operated railway, you need all the tractive effort you can get.

But you can get good tractive effort from modern bo-bo's. The DB Class 101's have 67,443lb of tractive effort.

 

[WatcherZero]

What I think he means is that there must be a reason why CAF can't build the DBSOs/DVT's at the same time as the conventional coaches, which would get rid of the need for T and T.

Think of a successful production line task like dance steps in a waltz

One two three four
One two three four
One two three four

Efficent steady production, as one team finishes they move on to the next and so on.

Now imagine you have a non-standard unit in the production line requiring more tasks, troubleshooting of new design mixed in amongst the others.

One two three four
One two three four five six
one two three four

Your production teams and supply chain become out of sync waiting for the next carriage to begin and possible delays arising from doing something new until the team gets used to it. Much better to do them all together at the end. When your doing something more complicated like carriages with cab ends you normally have a separate finishing team off to the side outside the normal carriage production chain. Its not such an issue with Multiple units usually because equipment is spread throughout the train. It may not have a cab but it does have motors, it may be just a trailer but its carrying a host of other vital equipment. the completion times even and usually because your doing each carriage that form a multiple unit at the same time. In comparison complexity in these rakes will be having a toilet to plumb. You wont have some of that flexibility because the production line has already been set up and calibrated for churning out Caledonian Sleeper trailers, having another carriage type done in parallel would mean hiring more staff and accelerating the supply chain.

One two three four five six
One two three four five six
One two three four five six


Its similar in commercial aircraft production, you have experienced engineers but when they are doing a new variant they will take much longer to complete. After they have done a few they will know what to do instinctively and not need to check the engineering diagrams, they will find shortcuts that speed up production.

For example when the A320 was new it would take 43 days to complete each one, after they had cranked out a couple of dozen they got it down to 25 days.

 

[fowler9]

The loco turnback is still in the station throat as are the stabling roads in between the platform roads. Wether they are still useable or not remains to be seen but the platform roads have not been used for some time

The rails are still there but they don't connect to anything if that makes sense. Have a nose next time you are there.

 

[HSTEd]

But you can get good tractive effort from modern bo-bo's. The DB Class 101's have 67,443lb of tractive effort.

With proper choice of gearing and motor design it would be possible to reach 90+klbf of starting tractive effort and maintain the 125mph top speed required.
Indeed you might even be able to push up to the Class 70, but that would probably give the track staff fits with the ballasting you would require for that.

 

[Harbornite]

Think of a successful production line task like dance steps in a waltz

One two three four
One two three four
One two three four

Efficent steady production, as one team finishes they move on to the next and so on.

Now imagine you have a non-standard unit in the production line requiring more tasks, troubleshooting of new design mixed in amongst the others.

One two three four
One two three four five six
one two three four

Your production teams and supply chain become out of sync waiting for the next carriage to begin and possible delays arising from doing something new until the team gets used to it. Much better to do them all together at the end. When your doing something more complicated like carriages with cab ends you normally have a separate finishing team off to the side outside the normal carriage production chain. Its not such an issue with Multiple units usually because equipment is spread throughout the train. It may not have a cab but it does have motors, it may be just a trailer but its carrying a host of other vital equipment. the completion times even and usually because your doing each carriage that form a multiple unit at the same time. In comparison complexity in these rakes will be having a toilet to plumb. You wont have some of that flexibility because the production line has already been set up and calibrated for churning out Caledonian Sleeper trailers, having another carriage type done in parallel would mean hiring more staff and accelerating the supply chain.

One two three four five six
One two three four five six
One two three four five six


Its similar in commercial aircraft production, you have experienced engineers but when they are doing a new variant they will take much longer to complete. After they have done a few they will know what to do instinctively and not need to check the engineering diagrams, they will find shortcuts that speed up production.

For example when the A320 was new it would take 43 days to complete each one, after they had cranked out a couple of dozen they got it down to 25 days.

That's a good way of explaining it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With proper choice of gearing and motor design it would be possible to reach 90+klbf of starting tractive effort and maintain the 125mph top speed required.
Indeed you might even be able to push up to the Class 70, but that would probably give the track staff fits with the ballasting you would require for that.

Aye, a 70 would be rather unsuitable for express passenger work to say the least.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thanks, I did start rambling a bit :P

 

[Harbornite]

Thanks, I did start rambling a bit :P

Are there any ideas how long t and t operations will last? Obviously this will depend on the time taken to complete the batch of DVT coaches. If this has been already stated on here then forgive me.

 

[AlexNL]

The order is for 66 carriages, not 65 - does anyone know if the odd one will be an extra driving cab, or an extra trailer car?

I put my money on an extra driving cab as it's not unlikely that one of those gets damaged in the event of a bird strike or an accident. Having a spare driving cab allows you to swap out the damaged driving cab and replace it with the spare one.

If you don't have a spare, you'll have to either work with two locomotives or you'll be shunting all day long. Plus, you're running short-formed.

 

[edwin_m]

I put my money on an extra driving cab as it's not unlikely that one of those gets damaged in the event of a bird strike or an accident. Having a spare driving cab allows you to swap out the damaged driving cab and replace it with the spare one.

If you don't have a spare, you'll have to either work with two locomotives or you'll be shunting all day long. Plus, you're running short-formed.

That also fits with the driving trailer including the First Class. If there's a problem with a TSO that rake could run short-formed, preferably on a less busy diagram. But if you're advertising provision of First on every train it's desirable to have a spare First coach otherwise if one is unusable you have to take the whole rake out of service or get very apologetic.

It's probably also helpful to have the on-train staff based in the same coach as the First Class, to enforce it and serve whatever goodies they decide to offer. This fits logically with having a crew area behind the cab. But it does raise the question of what they do for First Class and where the crew are based during the top-and-tail phase.

 

[158756]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but isn't the North TPE core supposed to be short on capacity? Which won't be helped by mixing the new bi modes and slower loco-hauled trains especially when the LHCS stops at Dewsbury.

 

[AndrewE]

Liverpool to Newcastle (or Edinburgh) is a long enough inter-city journey anyway, so why stop the long-distance trains at smaller intermediate stations?
Given that the current LHCS has longer dwell times because of only having doors at the coach ends, cutting a few intermediate stops would also maintain the same running times with slightly lower-acceleration trains and still fit in with modern units.
This also addresses the problems of platforms shorter than the train lengths that might be needed.
An hourly TP Express train from Liverpool might take the same journey time as a unit, but only call at Manchester, Leeds, York, (Darlington?) and Newcastle. The quality of the passenger experience would be improved as you wouldn't have short-hop commuters repeatedly scrambling over long-distance travellers as happens now.

 

[northwichcat]

Liverpool to Newcastle (or Edinburgh) is a long enough inter-city journey anyway, so why stop the long-distance trains at smaller intermediate stations?

That has an Intercity stopping pattern south of York now and it'll be speeded up between York and Newcastle when the second Newcastle service starts.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Err.... We'll keep the Durham stop if you don't mind thank you very much!

 

[northwichcat]

Err.... We'll keep the Durham stop if you don't mind thank you very much!

Apart from on the very early and late services TPE don't plan to stop all Newcastle services at Durham or Darlington once 2tph to Newcastle starts: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...01832/tpe-tsr-schedule_3-tsr2-main-tables.pdf

If you feel Durham needs a Liverpool service more than an Airport service did you respond to the TPE consultation saying so?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

My take on this is the trains should be stopping at LIV, NLW, MCV, HUD, LDS, YRK, NTR, DAR, DHM, NCL, MPT, ALN, BER, DUN, with additional peak time stops CLS, Musselburgh, chathll but leave the regular CLS stops to the MIA service with additional peak stops on that at Thirsk.

This provides significant improvement to Northumberland stations and offers a far better connection in and out of Chester and north wales than the current multiple changes.

 

[northwichcat]

? MCO is Manchester Oxford Road, Liverpool to West Yorkshire services are being routed away from that route to provide more paths for local services.

 

[notlob.divad]

Y take on this is the trains should be stopping at LIV, NLW, MCO, HUD, YRK, NTR, DAR, DHM, NCL, MPT, ALN, BER, DUN, with additional peak time stops CLS, Musselburgh, chathll but leave the regular CLS stops to the MIA service with additional peak stops on that at Thirsk.

This provides significant improvement to Northumberland stations and offers a far better connection in and out of Chester and north wales than the current multiple changes.

On the Chat Moss section, I wouldn't be surprised if the Newcastle Train runs none stop Liverpool to Manchester and it will be the Scarborough train that stops at SHJ and NLW. I also assume the you meant MCV not MCO and that the omission of Leeds was unintentional.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Apart from on the very early and late services TPE don't plan to stop all Newcastle services at Durham or Darlington once 2tph to Newcastle starts: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...01832/tpe-tsr-schedule_3-tsr2-main-tables.pdf

If you feel Durham needs a Liverpool service more than an Airport service did you respond to the TPE consultation saying so?

No, I just happen to work for the company. Staff are never consulted on stuff like this. It seems the dft don't value the opinions of the people on the frontline with the knowledge or experience that comes with it, and personally I can't see omitting Durham or Darlington as having any benefit, especially as a significant chunk of our business is business traffic to Manchester and the universities
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

? MCO is Manchester Oxford Road, Liverpool to West Yorkshire services are being routed away from that route to provide more paths for local services.

MCV! Damn phone AutoCorrecting! Edited!

 

[northwichcat]

No, I just happen to work for the company. Staff are never consulted on stuff like this.

The TPE franchise consultation was open to everyone - local Councillors, passengers, rail staff, rail unions, community rail partnerships, leasing companies and other TOCs. If you chose not to respond then you can't complain if your views weren't taken in to account.