Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[HSTEd]

BAA would be unlikely to obtain open access slots for HEx over TfL objections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As someone who suffers badly from arthritis and other rail travellers with disabilities, I find your above statement to be highly offensive HSTEd.

Well I am sorry if you do, but the fact remains that you (or people with similar problems) only make up a very small fraction of the travelling population. Far lower I would imagine than the 'lazy' demographic.

We can't cripple the railway to suit such a small group of people.

You would need to have sufficient people employed at each station to ensure all in need of assistance receive it for your idea to work, with compensation being paid if the assistance were not available. I think you will find the bean counters will tell you that is a No,No.

There are already vast numbers of railway staff employed at Manchester Picadilly on the concourse and elsewhere.
The cost of a few additional minimum-wage drones to cover that if the existing staff cannot would be peanuts compared to the cost of running nine units an hour (most of which are diesel) when 4tph electric would suffice.

 

[Wolfie]

BAA would be unlikely to obtain open access slots for HEx over TfL objections.

Was TfL to object solely to try and take over a successful service which BAA has built from scratch I imagine litigation (to be precise a judicial review) would be an absolute certainty.

 

[HSTEd]

Was TfL to object solely to try and take over a successful service which BAA has built from scratch I imagine litigation (to be precise a judicial review) would be an absolute certainty.

They would of course not be attempting to take over a succesful service - they would cite the need for additional Crossrail services to the stations between Heathrow and Paddington.

 

[Wolfie]

They would of course not be attempting to take over a succesful service - they would cite the need for additional Crossrail services to the stations between Heathrow and Paddington.

They can cite what they want... if BAA refuse to allow them to use their tunnels!!!

 

[HSTEd]

They can cite what they want... if BAA refuse to allow them to use their tunnels!!!

BAA would likely have to continue to provide 4tph to Crossrail for Heathrow Connect, but even if they don't - I don't see BAA coming out on top.

They get TfL for losing HEx but at the end of the day they'll have shot themselves in the foot if they don't allow the ex Connect paths to run as they won't have a Crossrail connection any more.

 

[Wolfie]

BAA would likely have to continue to provide 4tph to Crossrail for Heathrow Connect, but even if they don't - I don't see BAA coming out on top.

They get TfL for losing HEx but at the end of the day they'll have shot themselves in the foot if they don't allow the ex Connect paths to run as they won't have a Crossrail connection any more.

Correct, possibly about the Heathrow Connect slots though of course if they are linked to that service and it no longer exists...

No Crossrail service to Heathrow would likley mean gridlock on West London roads and politicians, including the Mayor of London who basically runs TfL, coming under pressure to sort things out....

Guess how? Either a) Give BAA their slots or b) buy the tunnels for market price - either way BAA are quids in!

 

[HSTEd]

Correct... which of course means gridlock on West London roads and politicians, including the Mayor of London who basically runs TfL, coming under pressure to sort things out....

Guess how? Either a) Give BAA their slots or b) buy the tunnels for market price - either way BAA are quids in!

You underestimate the guile of the Politicians.
He will use this to paint BAA as nothing but greedy banksters - and use it to strengthen his desire for a new airport elsewhere.

BAA refusing to play ball so close to the Airport Review report coming out would be a very very bad move on their part.
Without TfL/Mayorial support they will never get their third runway.

And market price is rather low when the tunnels are not in use because there are no paths for them to connect to.

 

[hwl]

The Crossrail journey time will be lower than current Connect one.

[Many people including myself don't use Express or Connect as the Piccadilly is quicker after the multiple changes involved to get to Paddington and the service frequencies]

BAA only have paths on the GWML fasts till 2023 at which point they may be better used by the GWML intercity operator. If the HEx service still exists they may be stuck on the slows behind a stopping Crossrail service and less of an express service.

 

[JamesRowden]

Correct, possibly about the Heathrow Connect slots though of course if they are linked to that service and it no longer exists...

No Crossrail service to Heathrow would likley mean gridlock on West London roads and politicians, including the Mayor of London who basically runs TfL, coming under pressure to sort things out....

Guess how? Either a) Give BAA their slots or b) buy the tunnels for market price - either way BAA are quids in!

Or operate a shuttle bus service from Iver station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, nine trains an hour (with an average load of thirty something), six of which are non-stop from Piccadilly to the Airport, one of which only makes one stop. Shall I remember this wastefulness next time you complain about lack of spare DMUs for Todmorden?

My "posting loins" are well and truly guarded against an introduction of the "Todmorden Chord fiasco" into comparative posting viewing, as for the last 12 months or so since that particular "no trains" fiasco has plummeted the depths of logic, I have been the leading proponent of the use of the X43 "Lancashire Witch" bus service that had modern buses with Wi-Fi and seats that only the Class 142 Pacer fleet can dream about. In the interim period, another dedicated fleet of "brand-new" buses has been put into service on this particular route....not 25 year old "cast-off" buses from the southern reaches of this land, which seems to be the current specification for train units cascaded northwards. Since no-one in the DfT or Northern Rail seems unduly bothered if units for that particular rail service that was suppose to commence in Easter 2014 are available, why on earth should I.

A reading of some of my past aspirational views on how Class 142 Pacers can be banned from entering Manchester Airport railway station (as they ruin the ambiance there) coupled with your wish to reduce direct services into Manchester Airport is to totally withdraw the Northern Rail Southport to Manchester Airport service and to use the Class 142 Pacers (currently running in paired units) to service the service via the Todmorden Chord from Blackburn to Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not aware of any significant drop in passenger numbers on the Newcastle - Manchester service, since it was diverted to Liverpool instead (?)

Not only am I in total agreement that First TPE did the right thing in divesting themselves of the responsibility of running Class 185 units on the Newcastle to Manchester Airport and rescheduling this as a service to Liverpool, but I have made my views known that the Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport service should also be rescheduled to run as a Middlesbrough to Liverpool service to give an excellent coast to coast service of increased frequency.

As you say, since there has been no significant drop in passenger numbers on the Newcastle service, logic would seem to imply that there would also be no particular significant drop in numbers on the Middlesbrough service.

The north-east have airport facilities that should be made more use of by airline travellers from that region. Let us have no "whinging" about Manchester Airport having a much wider range of medium and long-haul services than their local airports, they should just accept they have to make the best of a bad deal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've wondered in the past about a dedicated "Airport Shuttle" from Mayfield (AIUI you can "check in" at Paddington before boarding a Heathrow Express service, maybe a dedicated departure area for all Airport services at Piccadilly could have similar facilities for flyers?).

With Mayfield in mind and views of its future use, I think you can forget that particular idea.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, nine trains an hour (with an average load of thirtysomething), six of which are non-stop from Piccadilly to the Airport, one of which only makes one stop.

Shall I remember this wasfefulness next time you complain about lack of spare DMUs for Todmorden?

Question to ask is would not running to the Airport actually free up units in some cases or just result in a lot of trains sitting idle between Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction? The train from Llandudno arrives at Piccadilly at xx:56 but doesn't depart for Llandudno again until xx:50, so would extending that service to the Airport require an extra unit? Possibly not.

Also worth remembering TPE use the frequent Airport-Piccadilly service to their advantage when trains get delayed as they turn services around at Piccadilly to make up time. If they didn't run to the Airport and had short turnarounds at Piccadilly then you could, for instance, see South TPE turned around at Stockport during disruption to make up time.

 

[Boothby97]

The Cleethorpes airline passengers should be exhorted to use an airport much nearer to them or to go and spend their holidays in Skegness.

Manchester is really the most suitable airport for passengers from Northern Lincolnshire. I live in Cleethorpes so can relate to this. Humberside Airport is my nearest airport, but is only a minor airport and serves very few destination (although Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Hull are connected to it by an hourly bus service). Doncaster Airport also serves very few destinations, and it (like Leeds Bradford) requires a change from train to bus.
You mention that service, but then it is also provides Sheffield with it's only direct service to Manchester Airport.

 

[Aictos]

Gatwick didn't require track to be built as it was already there. Stansted I'm not so familiar with.

The Stansted Airport branch was constructed at a cost of £44 million and opened in 1991 by British Rail, to coincide with the completion of the airport's new terminal building which means basically that it did require the track to be built which was done as a triangle so services from London and East Anglia/Midlands could serve the Airport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester is really the most suitable airport for passengers from Northern Lincolnshire. I live in Cleethorpes so can relate to this. Humberside Airport is my nearest airport, but is only a minor airport and serves very few destination (although Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Hull are connected to it by an hourly bus service). Doncaster Airport also serves very few destinations, and it (like Leeds Bradford) requires a change from train to bus. You mention that service, but then it is also provides Sheffield with it's only direct service to Manchester Airport.

Perhaps you would care to see how tbtc will view what you say, as Sheffield is a settlement in which he is well versed. Perhaps he would wish to let this service go to the wall in the battle to provide both more units on other routes and a significant reduction in the number of services per hour that run to Manchester Airport railway station. I have already agreed with his view that the Newcastle to Manchester Airport service is now far better utilised as a Newcastle to Liverpool service and indeed, have made a suggestion today that the current Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport service should also be rescheduled as a Middlesbrough to Liverpool service. I also mentioned the termination of the Northern Rail Class 142 double unit service from Southport to Manchester Airport in order to divert that rolling stock to other Northern Rail services in need of them...and even to the Northern Rail route (which shall remain un-named) that is remarkable in having everything but trains to run on it.

 

[Class83]

There is some merit in terminating the 3 services which turn back from the bays, however, I doubt there would be that much benefit in stopping the platform 13/14 services from running through to the airport. Particularly if the units can be re-diagrammed to give longer trains from Manchester to Sheffield and Leeds.

 

[DJH1971]

Not wiring the CLC is silly. It needs to be done.

Too damn right.

I don't understand why it wasn't included in 2009.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There is some merit in terminating the 3 services which turn back from the bays, however, I doubt there would be that much benefit in stopping the platform 13/14 services from running through to the airport. Particularly if the units can be re-diagrammed to give longer trains from Manchester to Sheffield and Leeds.

Those reversing and crossing the throat moves take up a lot of capacity - but then they are much valued. Hard call.

 

[Buspilot]

you (or people with similar problems) only make up a very small fraction of the travelling population

HSTEd. The fraction is getting larger with people living longer. We simply cannot have our needs and future needs of the disabled and elderly dimissed as you would do. It needs factoring in to future planning. You may even join the group one day. I can only imagine your complaints when and if you get to that stage in life, with your needs not covered or services that you once enjoyed removed. Be careful what you would wish for others. It may come back to bite you.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Too damn right.

I don't understand why it wasn't included in 2009.

Could just be cold hard maths, not enough services would benefit.

 

[DJH1971]

Could just be cold hard maths, not enough services would benefit.

Well, with Manchester to Leeds electrification already confirmed and Manchester to Sheffield being looked at, this should surely strengthen the case?

 

[Class377/5]

Well, with Manchester to Leeds electrification already confirmed and Manchester to Sheffield being looked at, this should surely strengthen the case?

Especially for any reason the route via Earlstown has to be closed and you mostly lose TPE west of Manchester.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, with Manchester to Leeds electrification already confirmed and Manchester to Sheffield being looked at, this should surely strengthen the case?

The CLC makes no connections en route and perpetuates the slog across the Piccadilly throat and round south Manchester to reach Stalybridge.
It's also no use to freight with no WCML connection.
It was very much an act of faith by Andrew Adonis in 2009 to decide to electrify anything in addition to the GW route, and Earlestown got the vote with a bigger network benefit.
I've no doubt it will be electrified in time, probably linked to Hope Valley, but there is a huge clamour to be next in line.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, with Manchester to Leeds electrification already confirmed and Manchester to Sheffield being looked at, this should surely strengthen the case?

Possibly, but unless you are cutting short some services (might happen in the new franchises anyway) you'll only be replacing two or three services each way every hour, even with the rest of the electrification programme. The Chat Moss route currently seems to benefit six trains per hour each way (with the other routes electrified) using cascaded stock in at least four cases.

Especially for any reason the route via Earlstown has to be closed and you mostly lose TPE west of Manchester.

That's one service every hour (each way) out of two that currently run from Liverpool to Manchester and one each hour that goes to Glasgow/Edinburgh (depending on the limit of the closure). The former goes through Victoria (rather than Piccadilly), so can't use the CLC without being diverted through Piccadilly (or having atleast one reversal on quite a busy stretch of line), and the latter can't go via Warrington anyway.

 

[Class83]

Possibly, but unless you are cutting short some services (might happen in the new franchises anyway) you'll only be replacing two or three services each way every hour, even with the rest of the electrification programme. The Chat Moss route currently seems to benefit six trains per hour each way (with the other routes electrified) using cascaded stock in at least four cases.



That's one service every hour (each way) out of two that currently run from Liverpool to Manchester and one each hour that goes to Glasgow/Edinburgh (depending on the limit of the closure). The former goes through Victoria (rather than Piccadilly), so can't use the CLC without being diverted through Piccadilly (or having atleast one reversal on quite a busy stretch of line), and the latter can't go via Warrington anyway.

I suspect that there will be a second Chat Moss service as part of TPE North Electrification. The economics of CLC & Hope Valley will look much better after the MML is finished as they would allow the Nottingham (current Norwich) services to go over and if Sheffield-Doncaster is done will possibly allow TPE South to go fully electric.

 

[Starmill]

These brand new EMUs are out of date already?

The design is what - 15 years old? Compared to the state-of-the-art features the 700s will have, I'd say they are outdated, and...

Still not sure what makes them "regional", apart from the door configuration... do they have "regional" seats?

Yes! Totally inappropriate! Who looked at a route like Manchester to Edinburgh - about the same distance as London to Plymouth - and thought that a 4x20m 1/3 2/3 EMU would suffice? It's complete nonsense. It is a platform designed for the commuter services out of Waterloo for goodness sake!

I really don't understand the snobbery some people have about the position of doors on trains - people manage to board them whether they are in the middle or at the end, not sure why some obsess about it so much.

It's not snobbery, it's called ambiance. Some people like to relax while travelling you know, or have the opportunity to look out of a window from a seat. God forbid they might enjoy their 250 mile journey!

The fact that TPE needs such a high subsidy per passenger mile suggests that it has bigger problems than just the loadings east of Doncaster, and that it's more related to the "Provincial" pigeonhole than the "Intercity" one

Yeah, 'cos Manchester to Edinbrugh and Liverpool to Newcastle are totally not 'Intercity' journeys.

I'm old enough to remember the fleet of 158s that used to run Manchester - Scotland (and the Mkiis before that) - was it an "Intercity" route in those days? What changed?

It was underprovided for in the past - so it should continue to be in the future... ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The case so far seems to be summarised as : Woe is me, I'm a Manc, we pay low fares which don't even cover half the cost of running the trains, and for some reason we still don't have the latest shiny new trains... it's so unfair!!! I must throw my toys out of the pram....

You have as much evidence for that statement as I have for the following one:

Fares in and around the Greater Manchester Urban Conurbation have the harshest evening peak restrictions in the whole country (taking into account the distance they apply over), so we actually pay the highest fares countrywide and therefore deserve the first choice of new rolling stock.

 

[childwallblues]

Especially for any reason the route via Earlstown has to be closed and you mostly lose TPE west of Manchester.

Newton-le-Willows to Huyton Junction will be able to be bypassed once Wigan to Huyton is electrified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Too damn right.

I don't understand why it wasn't included in 2009.

The very large number of local stations on it would make electrification particularly sensible. Consideration could also be given to a Merseyrail extension to Warrington Central using dual-voltage stock, replacing the stopping train from Lime St.

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

Yes! Totally inappropriate! Who looked at a route like Manchester to Edinburgh - about the same distance as London to Plymouth - and thought that a 4x20m 1/3 2/3 EMU would suffice? It's complete nonsense. It is a platform designed for the commuter services out of Waterloo for goodness sake!

Does it matter what it's a platform for? What matters is the quality of the interior itself, and to me it's no worse than a Pendolino.

The difference between regional and InterCity stock has increasingly blurred with regional stock getting InterCity top speeds, air conditioning and seating layouts.

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

It's not snobbery, it's called ambiance. Some people like to relax while travelling you know, or have the opportunity to look out of a window from a seat.

Have you *actually been* on a 350/4? (or a /1 or /3, which are very similar in Standard)

They have excellent window alignment, massive windows and big luggage racks, and 2+2 seating equivalent to that on any other modern long-distance stock. Voyagers, so called InterCity stock, don't have #1 nor #3. The Pendolino fails on the first two.

Neil

 

[Starmill]

Yes, nine trains an hour (with an average load of thirtysomething), six of which are non-stop from Piccadilly to the Airport, one of which only makes one stop.

Shall I remember this wasfefulness next time you complain about lack of spare DMUs for Todmorden?

Yes, because this 'wastefulness' is the route cause of the success of Manchester Airport's station, which at only 20 years old has 3.1 million passengers annually one of the most successful new stations to open in the whole country.

It's not as if a rail link for a prominent Scottish Airport was scrapped because the case was too weak without direct services from many other parts of the country and the areas it serves. Services to the city centre only are insufficient to justify such expenditure, and passengers do not like changing.

Every point you come up with to detract from the successes of rail in the North and dampen anyone's ambition for a decent service in places that most certainly don't have it is deeply flawed. You've quoted a post giving you a most eloquent explanation of the reason for the overcapacity between Piccadilly and the Airport and replied to it by still calling it wasteful!?

Please improve your attitude.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have you *actually been* on a 350/4? (or a /1 or /3, which are very similar in Standard)

They have excellent window alignment, massive windows and big luggage racks, and 2+2 seating equivalent to that on any other modern long-distance stock. Voyagers, so called InterCity stock, don't have #1 nor #3. The Pendolino fails on the first two.

Neil

3 tables in the entire train line up with the windows. For 'excellent window alignment' allow me to direct you to a 185. There are very few other examples on stock used on long distance services, although a Pendolino is one of them - almost every single seat in First (compared to none in a 350 unless you could the bay of 4 by the small window) and every table seat in Standard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

3 tables in the entire train line up with the windows. For 'excellent window alignment' allow me to direct you to a 185.

The 185, interestingly, also has a commuter door layout. So we've established it isn't the doors? Though personally I believe the 185 has insufficient airline style seating. About half and half (the original 158 layout, for instance) is IMO best.

Where do you get the 3 tables per unit from?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=103959

Coach A: all tables aligned
Coach B: all tables aligned (roughly)
Coach C: all tables of 4 aligned except First Class (edited).
Coach D: all tables aligned

Notably the LM 350/3 layout has one more table in the space where the 350/4 has the extra small bog and the 350/1 has a pair of airline rows.

Unless you're getting *really* pedantic and considering that if there's a tiny amount of extra white space on one side it isn't aligned. Whereas I'm considering it as "has one full window within the bay", as that's what affects comfort rather that whether it's precisely in the middle or not.

There are very few other examples on stock used on long distance services, although a Pendolino is one of them - almost every single seat in First (compared to none in a 350 unless you could the bay of 4 by the small window) and every table seat in Standard.

Airline seat alignment in the Pendolino is poor, while in the 350 is good except for I think one row in the central section.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Admittedly unaligned First Class is disappointing, though I can't think of a way to align it within the same bodyshell without reducing legroom. In that case it might actually be better to have the lamp on a pillar and slightly more than half a window for each side. LM's layout does align it, but it does so by inserting an extra airline row, which reduces legroom - clearly TPE have prioritised comfort over view in having a larger First Class section but this has only one seat more (and a luggage rack) than the LM First Class layout which takes up one bay fewer, allowing 2 more Standard tables of 4.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Airline seat alignment in the Pendolino is poor, while in the 350 is good except for I think one row in the central section.

Agreed. However, due to the small windows if alignment was good the trains wouldn't have that many seats per carriage and would probably have a large number of luggage racks. The Pendolinos are the only type of train we have which are designed for 140mph tilting operation (although they're limited to 125mph.) The small windows are a compromise for having the 140mph tilting facility and enhance safety. Remember the Grayrigg derailment? Apparently things would have been much worse if the train had large windows and narrow pillars between windows (as you see on trains like Pacers.)