New TPE Train Discussion

[gimmea50anyday]

Sorry, I am still not au fait with the new TPE timetables, but what is the situation with direct services from Manchester Airport direct to Durham (and reverse)?

The current LIV-MCV-NCL are being extended to EDB and the current MIA-MAN-YRK will in turn be extended to NCL

 

[D6975]

We are talking about Hull here right? Station with a nice airy arched roof over each bay of platforms? Because I do not even remotely recognise that description!

I think he must be talking about the ends of the roof, where you step out into the open. The vertical ends come down to within a couple of feet of the rooftops of trains. Still not a few inches though.

 

[IanXC]

I think he must be talking about the ends of the roof, where you step out into the open. The vertical ends come down to within a couple of feet of the rooftops of trains. Still not a few inches though.

I agree I'm not sure where else he could be referring to, but it doesnt look problematic to me...

 

[Darandio]

No different to Darlington, York, anywhere really. I'm really not sure what problem is being referred to.

 

[absolutelymilk]

This seems to have got a bit off topic...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

A gaguing issue which might affect some tpe train procurement. I can't see it either....

 

[ainsworth74]

My fault

I think the issue has been put to bed so let's get back to the rolling stock rather than infrastructure!

 

[AndrewE]

I'm not sure who needs 6tph, but the powers that be have decided that's the best use of capacity. I don't agree but we are where we are. The problem with your complaint of seats being taken by Leeds to Huddersfield pax is that under the new timetable it won't just be Dewsbury and Huddersfield passengers taking up space on your Manchester train- it'll be Morley, Batley and Mirfield people too, and they won't have a choice any more than you do.
What do you feel would be gained by one of the six services omitting Huddersfield? It won't be speed that's for sure, as lines through HUD aren't particularly fast. If the only gain is that you can stretch your legs out a bit then frankly it's a selfish request and not something the railway should be busting a gut to fulfill.

Try reading post 772 (only posted yesterday morning!) Extra LHCS in the short term would release DMUs but are slow accelerating, need longer dwell times etc etc. Cutting the number of stops on the one (out of 6) that is LHCS would use the existing paths, give more capacity on the stoppers and improve the long-distance experience...
If the "Inter-city" "Trans-Pennine" "expresses" are really all going to call at every gatepost in Yorkshire then I imagine that you could reasonably complain that the name is totally unjustified - and look for a more attractive way to travel into the bargain.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Try reading post 772 (only posted yesterday morning!) Extra LHCS in the short term would release DMUs but are slow accelerating, need longer dwell times etc etc. Cutting the number of stops on the one (out of 6) that is LHCS would use the existing paths, give more capacity on the stoppers and improve the long-distance experience...
If the "Inter-city" "Trans-Pennine" "expresses" are really all going to call at every gatepost in Yorkshire then I imagine that you could reasonably complain that the name is totally unjustified - and look for a more attractive way to travel into the bargain.

Capacity at termini (whether Leeds, Huddersfield or either Manchester station) isn't why the stoppers are being removed- it's a lack of paths between those places, so omitting stops won't magically mean there's room for the stoppers. I think we're both of the opinion that fewer, longer, true expresses would be better than the current plans, but even if that was to happen, it would be a mistake to have any of the 3/4 expresses omit Huddersfield. Partly because Huddersfield is too big a market (both in and outbound) to miss, but also because very little would be gained by doing so, other than one express each hour being only half full.

The worry for me is how busy the 2 semi-fast services will become, as most will be single 185s for the foreseeable future. The Hull and Scarborough services are already overcrowded with just calling at Dewsbury and Stalybridge in addition to Huddersfield in the core- adding pax for half of the intermediate stations either side of Huddersfield won't be pretty!

 

[AndrewE]

Capacity at termini (whether Leeds, Huddersfield or either Manchester station) isn't why the stoppers are being removed-
a) I didn't think it was, and b) I hadn't realised that the stoppers are being reduced. We have had comments that long trains won't be able to serve places like Newton-le-Willows. I would say that this could be capitalised on by running one of the trains an hour as longer LHCS serving fewer stations.

it's a lack of paths between those places, so omitting stops won't magically mean there's room for the stoppers.
One long limited-stop LHCS per hour will attract custom off the stoppers (even if it takes the same time) and release units for strengthening the rest.

I think we're both of the opinion that fewer, longer, true expresses would be better than the current plans, but even if that was to happen, it would be a mistake to have any of the 3/4 expresses omit Huddersfield. Partly because Huddersfield is too big a market (both in and outbound) to miss, but also because very little would be gained by doing so, other than one express each hour being only half full.

I think that there is a lot of suppressed demand, and I bet that not stopping at Huddersfield would not mean a half-empty train.

The worry for me is how busy the 2 semi-fast services will become, as most will be single 185s for the foreseeable future.
LHCS would release some units
The Hull and Scarborough services are already overcrowded with just calling at Dewsbury and Stalybridge in addition to Huddersfield in the core- adding pax for half of the intermediate stations either side of Huddersfield won't be pretty!

Agreed, - and if Crewe stops can be omitted from all but one of the Anglo-Scottish train services (depriving the E midlands, Potteries & the Cardiff line of connections to the north) because of overcrowding I don't see how removing the Huddersfield stop on just one of the 6 trains per hour from there would be so serious either.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Agreed, - and if Crewe stops can be omitted from all but one of the Anglo-Scottish train services (depriving the E midlands, Potteries & the Cardiff line of connections to the north) because of overcrowding I don't see how removing the Huddersfield stop on just one of the 6 trains per hour from there would be so serious either.

The main problem is that the stoppers from Leeds to Huddersfield and the stoppers from Manchester to Huddersfield ARE being removed (they might be reinstated once the wires are up, but even then it will be subject to the same business case requirements as would an entirely new service). This means that not only will those smaller stops be picked up by the semi-fast services, but the option of taking the stopper (something I often do between HUD and LDS) will no longer be available for Huddersfield passengers. You said yourself that a TPE service emptied out at Huddersfield after being rammed leaving Leeds.

If the stoppers were staying there'd be a case for encouraging Leeds to Huddersfield passengers to use those instead (after all on the stopper the journey is only 40mins as opposed to 15-20 on the TPE- not a major penalty in the grand scheme of things) but as the stopper is being axed there's no justification for further reducing services to Huddersfield. There are many places smaller than Huddersfield (Wakefield being the obvious example) with a better service and no question of cutting back there.

 

[gsnedders]

Why is LHCS bad from a dwell time point-of-view? I presume these new builds will have powered doors (given, AFAIK, that's required nowadays), so the dispatch process shouldn't be any different from a DMU (with a guard, that is), should it? Obviously any slam-door stock will need longer dwell times, but anything with powered doors?

 

[Bungle965]

Why is LHCS bad from a dwell time point-of-view? I presume these new builds will have powered doors (given, AFAIK, that's required nowadays), so the dispatch process shouldn't be any different from a DMU (with a guard, that is), should it? Obviously any slam-door stock will need longer dwell times, but anything with powered doors?

I believe that from the start of the operation, TPE will be using Slam Door stock which as you correctly say will need longer dwell times. Untill the CAF stock gets delieved.
Sam

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Nope, as mentioned many times on here, new build CAF loco hauled rolling stock hauled by 68's

 

[NoMorePacers]

Hmm... I wonder what those could be. Ex Gat-Ex stock?

 

[CosherB]

Come on folks, keep with the programme! :roll: The new CAF LHCS will clearly have powered doors. There is still talk of the Pretendolino/Mk 3 sets being used temporarily. And for the umpteenth time, 442s are not coming to TPE !!!!

 

[Whistler40145]

Indeed NO 442s coming to FTPE.

 

[Bungle965]

Nope, as mentioned many times on here, new build CAF loco hauled rolling stock hauled by 68's

Oh I thought that up until the CAF stock had arrived they would be using Slam Door stock, eg The Pretendolino set.
My bad.
Sam

 

[AndrewE]

I believe that from the start of the operation, TPE will be using Slam Door stock which as you correctly say will need longer dwell times. Untill the CAF stock gets delieved.
Sam

I thought that the problem was that our currently-available LHCS is all based on welded tube bodies with single doors, only at the ends (and hence congestion/delays at stations if the train is busy) whereas Multiple Units designed for frequently-stopping services have 2 or more pairs of double doors spaced along the cars, none at the ends (so each can be fed from 2 sides.)
I think that powered doors delay trains too (in the way they are used in the UK) as it seems that the train has to stop, the guard has to open his door, then get out, scrutinise the platform and push a door release... then passengers have to push the button (as modern stock doesn't seem to recognise an already-pushed button)... then the door creeps open. Almost the same in reverse for departures. Slam doors would probably be quicker, even with central locking.

 

[NoMorePacers]

DDA compliance dictates that all trains must be fitted with plug-doors by 2019, which means that slam-doors will be confined to the dusty corners of the vault that is the history of UK railways. We will probably be nostalgic about them.

 

[AndrewE]

DDA compliance dictates that all trains must be fitted with plug-doors by 2019, which means that slam-doors will be confined to the dusty corners of the vault that is the history of UK railways. We will probably be nostalgic about them.

Plug doors required, or powered doors?

Anyway, we are nostalgic already... the characteristic sound of a Mk I door shutting and the sound a sliding compartment door makes ("Beclawat" stamped on the mechanism) take me back to the railway I joined. Lovely. Almost worth going to heritage railways just for that!

 

[northwichcat]

Oh I thought that up until the CAF stock had arrived they would be using Slam Door stock, eg The Pretendolino set.
My bad.
Sam

It's been reported First are in talks with Porterbrook over 10 x mk3 carriages until the new stock arrives. However, First were the one TPE bidder who ruled out using 442s completely.

 

[Whistler40145]

Presumably Mk3s+68?

 

[MatthewRead]

Presumably Mk3s+68?

Apparently its the Pretendelino set

 

[dgl]

I wonder if due to the delay, pending suitable conversion, the 442's are back on the cards esp. As they have powered doors.

Does porterbrook have enough mk3's including the possible use (and if necessary splitting up) of the prentendolino.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

DDA compliance dictates that all trains must be fitted with plug-doors by 2019, which means that slam-doors will be confined to the dusty corners of the vault that is the history of UK railways. We will probably be nostalgic about them.

I'd heard it said (on this forum) that HSTs may be compliant without powered doors, if handles were provided on the inside. This may be untrue, and in any case going to that trouble wouldn't be much easier or cheaper than replacing the slam doors with power doors anyway.

 

[CosherB]

It's been reported First are in talks with Porterbrook over 10 x mk3 carriages until the new stock arrives.

I'd assume that there aren't enough Pretendolino TSOs for two rakes of Mk3 LHCS. I think the Pretendolino fleet consists of 5 x TSOs, 3 x FOs, 2 x RFMs and 2 x DVTs. DRS has a number of Mk3 carriages going spare as they got hold of a rake (including the spare Pretendolino DVT) with the intention of using it for Class 68 testing, but used a rake of Riviera Mk2s instead. I've no idea what condition the DRS Mk3s are in currently but I's assume they're at the 'shabby' end of the scale.

As DRS are providing the 68s, are Porterbrook, DRS and First going to work this one out?

 

[Whistler40145]

What happened to the former Cargo D Mk3s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What happened to the former Cargo D Mk3s?

Aren't they now the Chiltern "Banbury commuter" set?

 

[Whistler40145]

Presumably