North TPE electrification

[YorkshireBear]

Ideally though the voyagers are needed for XC and there horrendous capactiy issues though.

 

[northwichcat]

Ideally though the voyagers are needed for XC and there horrendous capactiy issues though.

After TPE electrification you could reorganise the XC routes so that there is 1tph between Edinburgh and Leeds that's a EMU and the same between Manchester and Birmingham. That way you'll release a few Voyagers and having the extra pantograph vehicles will lengthen the trains and maybe you could even order an extra non-pantograph vehicle for the units that are currently 4 car.

The EMUs I've just mentioned could be part of the same order as for Birmingham-Scotland and North TPE. Maybe for fleet consistency put the hourly Manchester-Birmingham service in the west coast franchise and divert the Manchester-Hull service to Edinburgh after Leeds, giving a service every 15 minutes between York and Manchester. Then extend of the proposed additional Manchester-Leeds semi-fasts to Hull.

 

[tbtc]

Ideally though the voyagers are needed for XC and there horrendous capactiy issues though.

XC need the Voyagers most, I agree.

TPE needs to be solved differently.

 

[jonesy3001]

I dont know if this has been discussed, but is there plans to electrify the TPE depot in ardwick ready for the 350s in 2013 or are the 350s going to based at another depot.

 

[bluenoxid]

Isn't Manchester - Birmingham getting extra services as part of the upgrades to junctions on the route?

There is nothing wrong with dropping routes off TPE and handing them over to Crosscountry or Northern and vice versa. For example, Middlesborough or Hull could gain access to the Crosscountry network by diverting Newcastle terminator into them. The Northern Selby turnback could be passed on to Hull.

The services on the network are not fixed and electrification is likely to bring a major recast of services.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If hull does get electrified Then i would turn bradford forster square-leeds to BFS to selby. Freeing up space in terminating platforms, and shortening the grand tour a bit so it doesn't run under wires.

I agree it should all be recast. But i have no idea how, Leeds EC services could change northern TPE XC FHT just so much to fiddle about with. Amazing that the benefits havent been seen till now.

 

[northwichcat]

Amazing that the benefits havent been seen till now.

With the Northern Hub proposals there should be 8tph between Leeds and Huddersfield in each direction which would all be diesel if North TPE electrification wasn't going ahead. If that's not a high enough frequency to justify electrification I don't know what is.

 

[Nym]

Errr. wires would be to Selby too...

BFS - Leeds E Parkway would proberbly sit better...

 

[spasmj]

The correct three letter code for Bradford Forster Square is BDQ.

 

[Lampshade]

Outside of London while some major interchanges, like Leeds, also saw falls in passenger numbers stations like Liverpool Lime Street, Birmingham New Street, Manchester Oxford Road, Bristol Temple Meads, York, Newcastle, Crewe and Stoke all saw increases. (Manchester Victoria also saw a rise but Manchester Piccadilly saw a fall so the changes were probably down to Northern moving their Blackpool service from Piccadilly to Victoria.)

The reduction at Leeds was probably due to more people using season tickets/passes after the barriers were installed.

Northern's Blackpool service wouldn't have made a difference as it was directly replaced with the Preston - Hazel Grove service (interchange numbers are probably up at Piccadilly from people changing from the Buxton service), so essentially the only fall in passenger numbers at Piccadilly would be Blackrod, Adlington and Layton passengers - who would probably change at Preston/Bolton for Piccadilly anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

The reduction at Leeds was probably due to more people using season tickets/passes after the barriers were installed.

I'm not sure on your reasoning there. The automatic ticket barriers at Leeds replaced manned barriers, which were intended to speed up the process of entry and exit. It's not like at Blackpool North or Chester where you could walk on to trains without showing your ticket before the barriers and can't now the barriers are there.

Northern's Blackpool service wouldn't have made a difference as it was directly replaced with the Preston - Hazel Grove service

Yes it would as it's a different service. That's the same as saying if Virgin diverted one of their London-Crewe-Manchester services in to Victoria and added in an additional Crewe-Piccadilly service then passenger numbers at Piccadilly shouldn't be affected by the change.

 

[HSTEd]

XC need the Voyagers most, I agree.

TPE needs to be solved differently.

Well if we are talking about reopening the Voyager/Meridian bodyshell line for the purposes of building pantograph vehicles, is a new construction order of Cl221s or 222s totally out of the question?

They seem fairly well suited to me, rapid accelerating (even hauling a pantograph trailer) with high top speed for main line sections of various routes, and low route availability.
Albeit not quite low enough to allow Sprinter differential speeds to be used..... as much as that would be nice.

 

[Nym]

I think by differently I'd mean that all of TPE N Needs electrifying and running 6 car class 380 or similar units...

 

[HSTEd]

I think by differently I'd mean that all of TPE N Needs electrifying and running 6 car class 380 or similar units...

Ah, I just like the idea of building lots of ED Cl222s as a replacement for both Express Sprinters, HSTs and remaining loco hauled stock, standardisation and all that.

TPE N should most likely be pure EMU operation but there is TPE NW and all the other routes to consider.

 

[Nym]

TPE NW I'd be happy with 185s continuing on the Lakes routes, they seem quite well suited to it.

But to be honest, as a sprinter replacement, the 22x fleet is much less than ideal, if we wanted an EDMU to run about the UK, I'd have it based on the design of a current EMU, built either at Derby or in Germany, with generators added under two of the three coaches, two 750hp generators and a 1.5KW transformer in the centre, traction motors in each coach. Specified to run at 100mph max. As a pacer / sprinter replacement.

Since Diesel is getting more and more expensive, if a reigonal EDMU could be perfected, it would be nice to have. Especially if the 'stoppeyer' bits for routes like Windermere - Manchester where using these, on the leccy where performance is needed on the WCML and through Bolton, Diesel for the last bit (although wiring Windermere isn't a major thing anyway)

 

[HSTEd]

Just as people keep talking about the neccesity of increasing average speeds and reducing travel times to help make railways more attractive I can't help but thing of the Cl158s we have running on major lines getting in the way, too slow to use the fasts but too fast for the slows.

Its currently quicker for me to travel to leads and transfer onto TPE North to reach my uni from my home town than to take the direct train (assuming I can even get a seat on said train), its effectively faster and much nicer to go Norwich-London-Manchester than to take the direct train (As I found to my cost visiting someone at UEA).

Long regional express journeys may not be "InterCity" but they certainly deserve better service than is currently provided by Cl158s or Cl170s.

EDIT:
IN summary we run the risk of ending up with an SNCF-model railway with excellent express services but terrible regional and regional express ones, as compared to the old British model where we dont have 180mph trains but we did run more trains at over a hundred miles per hour than any other railway.

 

[IanXC]

Just as people keep talking about the neccesity of increasing average speeds and reducing travel times to help make railways more attractive I can't help but thing of the Cl158s we have running on major lines getting in the way, too slow to use the fasts but too fast for the slows.

This is how I see the problem. The answer as I see it is to cascade 220/221/222s to these kind of regional routes as and when their current routes are electrified. Not only improving performance on that service but freeing up 90mph paths on the approaches to major stations to be replaced with paths which can fit around the primary services on those routes.

 

[paul1609]

Just as people keep talking about the neccesity of increasing average speeds and reducing travel times to help make railways more attractive I can't help but thing of the Cl158s we have running on major lines getting in the way, too slow to use the fasts but too fast for the slows.

Its currently quicker for me to travel to leads and transfer onto TPE North to reach my uni from my home town than to take the direct train (assuming I can even get a seat on said train), its effectively faster and much nicer to go Norwich-London-Manchester than to take the direct train (As I found to my cost visiting someone at UEA).

Long regional express journeys may not be "InterCity" but they certainly deserve better service than is currently provided by Cl158s or Cl170s.

EDIT:
IN summary we run the risk of ending up with an SNCF-model railway with excellent express services but terrible regional and regional express ones, as compared to the old British model where we dont have 180mph trains but we did run more trains at over a hundred miles per hour than any other railway.

Sorry but unless there are massive upgrades to the infrastructure the use of 125 mph diesel units on Norwich to Liverpool services is in my opinion a complete waste. 90 mph is perfectly adequate for this sort of service.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry but unless there are massive upgrades to the infrastructure the use of 125 mph diesel units on Norwich to Liverpool services is in my opinion a complete waste. 90 mph is perfectly adequate for this sort of service.

And said upgrades will never occur because the units assigned to the route are only capable of 90mph.

Chicken and Egg

EDIT:
Based on some very rough back of the envelope calculations, putting either a 4 coach Cl220 or a 5 coach ED Cl220 would enable roughly half an hour to be cut from the Norwich-Manchester journey time with no infrastructure work whatsoever, this translates to roughly ten percent of the journey time.

That ain't bad, especially as I have no data as to time savings possible on some stretches of the line (such as Nottingham-Grantham) due to the drastically improved acceleration of the set.
Neglecting regional expresses because 125mph units are "overkill" is only going to encourage the growth in regional aviation to take such "cross-country" journeys off the railways which are apparently becoming increasingly focussed on simply connecting places to London.

 

[bluenoxid]

And said upgrades will never occur because the units assigned to the route are only capable of 90mph.

Chicken and Egg

EDIT:
Based on some very rough back of the envelope calculations, putting either a 4 coach Cl220 or a 5 coach ED Cl220 would enable roughly half an hour to be cut from the Norwich-Manchester journey time with no infrastructure work whatsoever, this translates to roughly ten percent of the journey time.

That ain't bad, especially as I have no data as to time savings possible on some stretches of the line (such as Nottingham-Grantham) due to the drastically improved acceleration of the set.
Neglecting regional expresses because 125mph units are "overkill" is only going to encourage the growth in regional aviation to take such "cross-country" journeys off the railways which are apparently becoming increasingly focussed on simply connecting places to London.

did the back of your envelope include the time lost whilst it pootles around East Anglia at Freight speeds because the unit is too heavy.

The rail network is already focused on London. Sheeesssshhhhhh :roll:

 

[HSTEd]

did the back of your envelope include the time lost whilst it pootles around East Anglia at Freight speeds because the unit is too heavy.

The rail network is already focused on London. Sheeesssshhhhhh :roll:

Well both Cl158s and Cl220/222 are apparently RA2 (thanks to the latter having fancy lightweight bogies), so they might be able to use similar speed differentials, even if the latter cannot qualify for the full SP grouping. (Apparently the Cl172 doesnt either? )

It would seem reasonable that differential speeds for the "HST" group (which includes Cl220/222) could be applied to the Breckland line if there was an actual reason for them to be applied, as I dont think anyone has ever regularly run such a service down there that didn't fit in the SP grouping.

EDIT: Cl171 is an "SP" qualified unit and is only fractionally lighter than a Cl220 (1t per vehicle) so I'm sure some sort of differential is possible.

 

[paul1609]

And said upgrades will never occur because the units assigned to the route are only capable of 90mph.

Chicken and Egg

EDIT:
Based on some very rough back of the envelope calculations, putting either a 4 coach Cl220 or a 5 coach ED Cl220 would enable roughly half an hour to be cut from the Norwich-Manchester journey time with no infrastructure work whatsoever, this translates to roughly ten percent of the journey time.

That ain't bad, especially as I have no data as to time savings possible on some stretches of the line (such as Nottingham-Grantham) due to the drastically improved acceleration of the set.
Neglecting regional expresses because 125mph units are "overkill" is only going to encourage the growth in regional aviation to take such "cross-country" journeys off the railways which are apparently becoming increasingly focussed on simply connecting places to London.

I think that your back of the fag packet calculations are very optimistic. I dare say that the theoretical journey time for this sort of route is much lower even with the class 158s than it is in reality. Thats because this sort of cross country route requires large pathing allowances at the major interchanges to maintain reliability. An example of this would have been the use of the 220s on the old XC routes to Brighton. The pathing allowances for these services were very generous. In the last few weeks of operation I travelled on a service that was 34 mins late at Reading, approaching Maidenhead on the diagrammed relief lines the brakes came on and I imagined being held behind a stopper all the way to the West london Line, but we were put on the fast lines all the way to Ealing. A run with successive greens followed round the West London line before we were again put on the fasts at Balham arriving at East Croydon only 2 minutes late. Arrival at Gatwick airport where I alighted was around 3 mins early!

 

[tbtc]

Based on some very rough back of the envelope calculations, putting either a 4 coach Cl220 or a 5 coach ED Cl220 would enable roughly half an hour to be cut from the Norwich-Manchester journey time with no infrastructure work whatsoever, this translates to roughly ten percent of the journey time

So few people travel long distance on this service (i.e. over two/three hours) that it wouldn't be *that* beneficial. You'd still need plenty spare time to cope with potential delays (like the time taken around Sheffield).

Would a five coach 220 Voyager have more seats than the four coach 158s currently running this service west of Nottingham?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Would a five coach 220 Voyager have more seats than the four coach 158s currently running this service west of Nottingham?

I suspect 2 x 158 would have more seats than 1 x 220 / 221 / 222 with 5-cars.

 

[northwichcat]

AFAIK there's never been a 5-car 220, only 5-car 221s I suspect 2 x 158 would have more seats than 1 x 22x.

So in saying 1 x 22x are you including the 7 car 222s?

All the 22xs have a First Class section which the EMT 158s do not. If the 22xs were refurbished to have only standard class 2+2 seating they would have more seats then they have at present.

If the 5 car 221s (ignoring the hybrid sets) were refurbished to have two accessible toilets, only first class accommodation and no shop you'd be looking at around 320 seats.

 

[sprinterguy]

AFAIK there's never been a 5-car 220, only 5-car 221s

But the question was asked with 220s with an additional pantograph car in mind.

Would a five coach 220 Voyager have more seats than the four coach 158s currently running this service west of Nottingham?

Assuming that the additional pantograph car would have the same capacity as the existing MS vehicles in a 220, a five carriage 220 would have 240 standard class seats (and 26 first class). This is a good deal less than a pair of EMT 158s, which has 292 seats. A 5 carriage 220 with no first class provision, i.e. the DMF vehicle reseated as a DMS, would still only seat 282 and I think that some first class accomodation would be quite a good thing on the Liverpool to Norwich route.

As a comparison, a five carriage 222 has even less standard class seats: 192, but more first class seating (50).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So in saying 1 x 22x are you including the 7 car 222s?

All the 22xs have a First Class section which the EMT 158s do not. If the 22xs were refurbished to have only standard class 2+2 seating they would have more seats then they have at present.

If the 5 car 221s (ignoring the hybrid sets) were refurbished to have two accessible toilets, only first class accommodation and no shop you'd be looking at around 320 seats.

Indeed, I was discounting the 7-car 22s, I'll edit my post to show that. TBH though, I don't see the point in refitting several Voyagers, when you could use 158s, get comparable amounts of seating, and save quite considerable amounts of money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the question was asked with 220s with an additional pantograph car in mind.

See my edited post

 

[northwichcat]

I don't see the point in refitting several Voyagers, when you could use 158s, get comparable amounts of seating, and save quite considerable amounts of money.

If the Virgin Voyagers are put in to the XC franchise as a lot of people are suggesting I can see them being refitted anyway opposed to having a small number with a shop and less seats and a larger number without a shop and more seats.

 

[tbtc]

Based on some very rough back of the envelope calculations, putting either a 4 coach Cl220 or a 5 coach ED Cl220 would enable roughly half an hour to be cut from the Norwich-Manchester journey time

I suspect 2 x 158 would have more seats than 1 x 220 / 221 / 222 with 5-cars.

So in saying 1 x 22x are you including the 7 car 222s?

Fairest to compare it to the five coach example quoted by HSTEd.

A seven coach 22x sounds nice, but then there are a lot of XC services with four coach examples which would be well ahead in the "queue" if such trains were being built.

 

[Nym]

Yup, building two panto coaches for each 22x set kicking about would be rather nice, give XC a mix of 6 and 7 car units, and since most off wires services (soon) won't be anywhere near touching the 125, the lack of power at the top end off wires isn't too much of an issue...