Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[Greybeard33]

This gets quoted a lot - but I thought it had been mentioned on here that the actual issue was *large* engines in a UK loading gauge locomotive, not small ones in a DMU. After all, road engines in large lorries and buses/coaches have to fit into quite a small space - having an entire 16m-ish of train underbody to hang them from is comparative luxury.

Neil

The February 2014 update to the Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry stated:

This Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy has been
produced by a Steering Group chaired by Richard Brown,
and comprising senior representatives of:
•Angel Trains
•ATOC Engineering Council
•Eversholt Rail Group
•Network Rail
•Porterbrook Leasing
•Rail Delivery Group Executive Team
•Train Operating Company Owner Groups

47. It is widely expected that present and future EU legislation regarding emissions from diesel
engines (Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent amendments, implemented in Great Britain as
the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations
1999 and 2013, known as NRMM) will increasingly make it difficult to procure and operate
new DMUs having underfloor diesel engines, with an affordable business case. Indeed, EU
consultation on further tightening of the rules is now underway.

http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portals/0/News_Downloads/Rolling%20Stock%20Strategy%202014%20v10.pdf

Has anything changed in the last year to contradict this?

 

[Class 170101]

Having read the service specification I am a little confused. The second train per hour on the Mid-Cheshire Line that currently runs during peak hours has to terminate at Stockport due to the lack of paths into Manchester. However the service specification for the new franchise says that the current off-peak schedule has to include;
A second hourly mid cheshire service between Manchester and Northwich and also a second Macclesfield stopper and also a new hourly service to New Mills on the Buxton line. How can this be possible? Is it because the TPEx service to Liverpool is to be removed meaning that no services will have to traverse the entire throat at Piccadilly?

I think you have it there - Piccadilly throat decongestion amongst other Northern Hub infrastructure.

It will also decrease platform usage at Piccadilly as instead of a reversal taking upto 10 minutes it will become a through train occupying the platforms for 1 - 2 minutes at most. Thereby releasing capacity for extra services to both Macclesfield and Mid Cheshire Lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The danger of skip-stop services is that they kill the utility of the service for local journeys, unless the timetables are arranged for easy connections between the two. Time for the Swiss approach the DfT were mooting applying to services in East Anglia?

Don't even mention that lunacy. I have read what has been suggested. Most of it not worth credibility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't even mention that lunacy. I have read what has been suggested. Most of it not worth credibility.

I disagree; while it is possibly over-idealistic in places (it is after all an experimental proposal) there are some foundations in sense in it. So killing direct trains may be a bad idea, however timing skip-stop trains for a decent connection between them (and ensuring, unlike the south WCML service pattern at times, that there is always a common station at which that connection can be made, and similarly adding double-back easements where a double-back is the only sensible connection) is a very good one.

Precisely the listed proposals work in Switzerland. Switzerland, granted, isn't the UK, but it does mean there is a base level of credibility to them.

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

This gets quoted a lot - but I thought it had been mentioned on here that the actual issue was *large* engines in a UK loading gauge locomotive, not small ones in a DMU. After all, road engines in large lorries and buses/coaches have to fit into quite a small space - having an entire 16m-ish of train underbody to hang them from is comparative luxury.

My source is a RSSB report which I can't link to as it's behind a login, but anyone can register. This claimed that the IIIb emissions regulations would probably make it impossible to produce underfloor engine DMUs for the UK. I don't have the technical knowledge of diesel engines and post-treatment systems to comment on this. It isn't the case with locomotives, as I believe the class 68 is compliant.

With road vehicles there is more scope to make the engine compartment larger if needed, whereas with rail the floor height is fixed unless you go the SET route of ramping up the floor between the bogies, which is probably only practicable on a long-distance vehicle with end doors.

 

[Class 170101]

I'd be surprised if they went above-floor, as that wastes precious train length on engines. I'd expect underfloor, but on every coach except the one with the transformer. EMUs can have plenty of space under the non-transformer cars (the driving trailers of 321s have practically nothing at all under them).

Neil

Indeed apparently IEP can get the engines under the floor though I thought there was something about a sloping floor where the engine was underneath.

Reducing the installed diesel power makes sense - try for 100mph EMU performance in a diesel and you end up with a 185 or something equally overweight. Although I think there will be fewer but larger above-floor engines so the train is effectively a standard EMU below the floor. The scope to turn them on and off may therefore be limited.

However one wouldn't want to under power the engine(s) too much considering the trains are likely be traversing the Pennines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My source is a RSSB report which I can't link to as it's behind a login, but anyone can register. This claimed that the IIIb emissions regulations would probably make it impossible to produce underfloor engine DMUs for the UK. I don't have the technical knowledge of diesel engines and post-treatment systems to comment on this. It isn't the case with locomotives, as I believe the class 68 is compliant.

Class 68 I thought was 3A compliant.

The first 3B I am aware of will be the Class 88.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed apparently IEP can get the engines under the floor though I thought there was something about a sloping floor where the engine was underneath.

A much larger engine, though. No need for 938hp under a 100/110mph DMU.

Neil

 

[Class 170101]

I disagree; while it is possibly over-idealistic in places (it is after all an experimental proposal) there are some foundations in sense in it. So killing direct trains may be a bad idea, however timing skip-stop trains for a decent connection between them (and ensuring, unlike the south WCML service pattern at times, that there is always a common station at which that connection can be made, and similarly adding double-back easements where a double-back is the only sensible connection) is a very good one.

Precisely the listed proposals work in Switzerland. Switzerland, granted, isn't the UK, but it does mean there is a base level of credibility to them.

Neil

Having read the report I didn't give it creditibility, loss of cross country services (eg changing at Newmarket), extended journey times due to
calling at minor stations the reverse of what Norwich in 90 wants to achieve.

Extra services on branch lines has also been mentioned when the demand isn't there. Also where are the trains coming from for these services particularly those requiring DMUs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

My source is a RSSB report which I can't link to as it's behind a login, but anyone can register. This claimed that the IIIb emissions regulations would probably make it impossible to produce underfloor engine DMUs for the UK.

Someone's posted it above. I just find it difficult to believe, though, particularly in the context of road vehicle engines having to fit in a far smaller space, that technology won't solve the problem.

With road vehicles there is more scope to make the engine compartment larger if needed, whereas with rail the floor height is fixed unless you go the SET route of ramping up the floor between the bogies, which is probably only practicable on a long-distance vehicle with end doors.

True, though (per my other post) the SET has a very large (938hp) engine. A regional DMU perhaps needs half that, particularly if (unlike the weighty Class 185) aluminium bodywork and other lightweight components are used.

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

Extra services on branch lines has also been mentioned wne the demand isn't there. Also where are the trains coming from for these services particularly those requiring DMUs?

Fair point. To go back on topic (though I know it isn't responding directly to your point) on Northern it seems clear there will be a growth build.

Neil

 

[47802]

A much larger engine, though. No need for 938hp under a 100/110mph DMU.

Neil

Not all the coaches need to be powered though, In any case I expect a smaller engine can probably be found, I doubt that it is as bigger problem as some people try to make out, Looking at the Cummins website they appear to have some Stage 4/Tier IV engines in the 500-675 hp range for potential rail use

Why on earth are TPX services potentially stopping at Batley, who came up with that crackpot idea, the place is only a stones throw from Dewsbury, and its not a place you would go to by choice that's for sure.

 

[Lincoln]

Interesting letter here where the SoS formally instructs the Permanent Secretary to proceed with the requirement for Pacer replacement and new vehicles, overruling the concerns of the Permanent Secretary over costs. This also assumes new vehicles are diesels with no mention of bi-mode, batteries or bionic duckweed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...thdrawal-confirming-the-ministerial-direction

This is in response to the below where the Perm Sec points out the poor BCR of the Pacer replacement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pacer-vehicles-withdrawal-seeking-a-ministerial-direction

Off topic, but I had to smile when reading that exchange.

Reminded me so much of Yes Minister!

 

[yorksrob]

Off topic, but I had to smile when reading that exchange.

Reminded me so much of Yes Minister!

"The analysis recognises that the Pacers will need to be replaced when they reach the end of their useful life, if the current level of service is to be maintained. The fundamental reason for the poor BCR is that there will be large costs from bringing forward that replacement to 2020"

Given that the 142's were built in the very early 1980's, and that 2020 will be almost forty years later, I'm intrigued as to what the Permanent Secretary considers the "useful life" of DMU's to be ?

Certainly there aren't many that last more than forty years, and I'd be surprised if their design life would have been forty years, let alone more !

 

[47802]

Given that the 142's were built in the very early 1980's, and that 2020 will be almost forty years later, I'm intrigued as to what the Permanent Secretary considers the "useful life" of DMU's to be ?

Certainly there aren't many that last more than forty years, and I'd be surprised if their design life would have been forty years, let alone more !

Well I think 35 years actually but as you say that's more than long enough, most of the 1st gen DMU's were replaced at about 35 years ok there were a few that lasted another 10 years but they really were well past their use by date by then. So one wonders how long the Permanent Secretary expects the 1st Gen Sprinters to last?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well I think 35 years actually but as you say that's more than long enough, most of the 1st gen DMU's were replaced at about 35 years ok there were a few that lasted another 10 years but they really were well past their use by date by then. So one wonders how long the Permanent Secretary expects the 1st Gen Sprinters to last?

One would expect the Permanent Secretary to have been "leant upon" by those in the Treasury to make such a comment.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not all the coaches need to be powered though, In any case I expect a smaller engine can probably be found, I doubt that it is as bigger problem as some people try to make out, Looking at the Cummins website they appear to have some Stage 4/Tier IV engines in the 500-675 hp range for potential rail use

Why on earth are TPX services potentially stopping at Batley, who came up with that crackpot idea, the place is only a stones throw from Dewsbury, and its not a place you would go to by choice that's for sure.

Hey!

I agree with those questioning the need for 6tph on the Standedge route. In fact, when the sixth is added, 2 of the six will have calls at several intermediate stations that currently are passed at 50+mph, so services are actually being slowed down in some cases. Ideally there'd be 4 TPE services each hour, 2 calling at Dewsbury. With electrification there'd probably be paths for 4 stoppers, of which 2 would be Leeds-Huddersfield calling at most if not all stations. The third would be the Victoria via Brighouse with the fourth path used for a third Huddersfield service that calls only at Batley, Dewsbury and Mirfield. (omitting Morley as growth there is held back by the poorly located station - not something that's easy to solve!). This service could then form the stopper/one of the semi-fasts West of Huddersfield as far as Manchester (presumably Piccadilly.

Presumably Batley will have 2tph with the semi-fasts, on paper an increase in frequency to Huddersfield... but of course that's not really an increase in the real world, with the change at Dewsbury. It will help in the other direction though. I assume the Victoria via Brighouse is staying for now, so 3tph to Leeds is an improvement (if one can call it that! ).

If Batley is as bad as you make out (and I agree it's a bit rough round the edges), surely that's a good reason to try to stimulate growth by improving connectivity? A town of 50,000 people should really generate more than 290,000 journeys per year (latest available figures). Growth has been held back by a poor service for years. I just hope that the better service doesn't put my rent up, the only reason I moved here was to get twice the space I could get for the same money in Huddersfield! As for the proximity to Dewsbury, if the local buses to Batley were better/quicker/more frequent you'd have a point, but as things stand there's an awful lot of travel (admittedly not necessarily ticketed!) between the two stations.

 

[edwin_m]

However one wouldn't want to under power the engine(s) too much considering the trains are likely be traversing the Pennines.

Only on the Calder Valley I think, which is relatively flat apart from the bit round Halifax/Bradford which is hilly but slow for other reasons. 150s seem to do OK so I guess similar installed power to those, plus a bit more for the aircon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One would expect the Permanent Secretary to have been "leant upon" by those in the Treasury to make such a comment.

Seems to me to be backside protection, to make sure it is on record that the Minister has overruled the advice from his civil servants. Sir Humphrey would have called it courageous I think.

If the new build fails to achieve the necessary extra ridership to justify its costs, then the Minister will officially be to blame. However given the track record of all Governments, whoever is in power he won't be the Minister any more by then.

 

[yorksrob]

Seems to me to be backside protection, to make sure it is on record that the Minister has overruled the advice from his civil servants. Sir Humphrey would have called it courageous I think.

If the new build fails to achieve the necessary extra ridership to justify its costs, then the Minister will officially be to blame. However given the track record of all Governments, whoever is in power he won't be the Minister any more by then.

The curious thing is that the Permanent Secretary has already conceded the Pacer replacement is justified at the end of their useful lives on the grounds of being necessary to maintain the service, rather than having to be justified by increasing revenue. The question is, if an already not fit for purpose DMU isn't at the end of its useful life after forty years, then when is it?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The curious thing is that the Permanent Secretary has already conceded the Pacer replacement is justified at the end of their useful lives on the grounds of being necessary to maintain the service, rather than having to be justified by increasing revenue. The question is, if an already not fit for purpose DMU isn't at the end of its useful life after forty years, then when is it?

It is the skilled reasoning of Permanent Secretaries using a surfeit of oblique logic that could make what you say as being a normal fact of life.

Thank heavens that none of these are involved in the running of second-hand car companies such as "We buy any car"..:roll:

 

[ianhr]

Hey!

I agree with those questioning the need for 6tph on the Standedge route. In fact, when the sixth is added, 2 of the six will have calls at several intermediate stations that currently are passed at 50+mph, so services are actually being slowed down in some cases. Ideally there'd be 4 TPE services each hour, 2 calling at Dewsbury.
A town of 50,000 people should really generate more than 290,000 journeys per year (latest available figures). Growth has been held back by a poor service for years. .

Yes 6tph without additional track (re-quadrupling Thornhill-Heaton Lodge + Marsden-Diggle) is crazy. As several of us have argued on here, what is needed is LONGER trains not more of them!

Batley station is a miserable place and to attract more traffic it will need proper platform canopies, ticket office, heated waiting rooms etc. The same could be said incidentally for Mirfield and Morley if a decent service is to be provided to the medium sized towns on this route.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes 6tph without additional track (re-quadrupling Thornhill-Heaton Lodge + Marsden-Diggle) is crazy. As several of us have argued on here, what is needed is LONGER trains not more of them!

There are already 6tph - 5 x TPE and 1 x Northern. The plan is an express train every 15 minutes between Victoria and York (no calls at Stalybridge or Dewsbury), with a half-hourly semi-fast between Piccadilly and Leeds.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

http://humbertransport.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/barton-line-to-east-midlands-franchise.html?m=1

The Humber Transport website says the inclusion of the Barton to Cleethorpes line in the East Midlands franchise raises questions:
With only one 153 unit being transfered how will the hourly early morning service run?
Why does the DfT think EMT are better placed when their services terminate at a different station and the nearest depot is Nottingham?
Are Cleethorpes or Lincoln based crew to be used and would this change the timetable?
What will happen to the morning service from Doncaster?
What effect would putting two RailNorth councils and a community rail group which also covers the Yorkshire Coast line in East Midlands have?

I am very concerned that this will be the sole Northern Rail line where services will be cut as a result of this ITT. Anyone have answers?
Any other services facing cuts?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes 6tph without additional track (re-quadrupling Thornhill-Heaton Lodge + Marsden-Diggle) is crazy. As several of us have argued on here, what is needed is LONGER trains not more of them!

6tph is a result of the current short-train policy of 3-car 185s.
There aren't enough to run 6-car trains, and no other flexibility in train formation.
If TP electrification was going ahead as originally promised, the TPE ITT would be talking about buying more suitable EMUs for the route (eg 4/5/6-car sets).
As it is we are stuck with 3-car 185s and the 6tph until the wires go up.

As I see it the 120 new Northern DMU vehicles will be high-spec, and not just Pacer-replacements (hence D78s won't cut it).
I'd expect to see them on the Northern "express" routes.
DfT and the ROSCOs will want long-lasting multi-purpose stock, leaving local cascades to eliminate the Pacers.

 

[LowLevel]

http://humbertransport.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/barton-line-to-east-midlands-franchise.html?m=1

The Humber Transport website says the inclusion of the Barton to Cleethorpes line in the East Midlands franchise raises questions:
With only one 153 unit being transfered how will the hourly early morning service run?
Why does the DfT think EMT are better placed when their services terminate at a different station and the nearest depot is Nottingham?
Are Cleethorpes or Lincoln based crew to be used and would this change the timetable?
What will happen to the morning service from Doncaster?
What effect would putting two RailNorth councils and a community rail group which also covers the Yorkshire Coast line in East Midlands have?

I am very concerned that this will be the sole Northern Rail line where services will be cut as a result of this ITT. Anyone have answers?
Any other services facing cuts?

The first EMT service from Cleethorpes leaves before the first Barton line one. It arrives ECS from Lincoln which is a stabling point at 0542. Just put an extra crew and unit on it. I would imagine it would be worked from Lincoln as only they currently work to Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

 

[WatcherZero]

http://humbertransport.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/barton-line-to-east-midlands-franchise.html?m=1

The Humber Transport website says the inclusion of the Barton to Cleethorpes line in the East Midlands franchise raises questions:
With only one 153 unit being transfered how will the hourly early morning service run?
Why does the DfT think EMT are better placed when their services terminate at a different station and the nearest depot is Nottingham?
Are Cleethorpes or Lincoln based crew to be used and would this change the timetable?
What will happen to the morning service from Doncaster?
What effect would putting two RailNorth councils and a community rail group which also covers the Yorkshire Coast line in East Midlands have?

I am very concerned that this will be the sole Northern Rail line where services will be cut as a result of this ITT. Anyone have answers?
Any other services facing cuts?

If you read the consultation response it explains it, but essentially the Government believed it was an orphan service and not a good fit for TPE after other service transferred from Northern to TPE so they thought EMT were a better fit.

 

[lejog]

Hey!
<snip>
Presumably Batley will have 2tph with the semi-fasts, on paper an increase in frequency to Huddersfield... but of course that's not really an increase in the real world, with the change at Dewsbury. It will help in the other direction though. I assume the Victoria via Brighouse is staying for now, so 3tph to Leeds is an improvement (if one can call it that! ).

"Fourteen services departing from Leeds to Hebden Bridge shall also call at Dewsbury" according to the Northern Service requirement tables for both 2017 & 2019 - extended in the evenings to around 9pm rather than the current 7pm. TPE seem to serve Batley and Ravensthorpe (!) while Northern serves Cottingley. Morley, Dewsbury and Mirfield are served by both.

The Northern "stopper" reverts to being a skip/stop service too and will be skipping Batley. I don't ever see the Northern service ever being stopped, which politicians are going to tell Brighouse commuters they face an increase in journey time to Leeds from 35min to 52min? Also Metro are targeting 2020 for a new Elland station.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The first EMT service from Cleethorpes leaves before the first Barton line one. It arrives ECS from Lincoln which is a stabling point at 0542. Just put an extra crew and unit on it. I would imagine it would be worked from Lincoln as only they currently work to Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

But how does the last Barton unit and crew get back to Lincoln?
I'm concerned the late Barton to Cleethorpes services will be cut to allow the unit to return towards Lincoln, or will staff be put in a taxi?

 

[northwichcat]

The February 2014 update to the Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry stated:


http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portals/0/News_Downloads/Rolling%20Stock%20Strategy%202014%20v10.pdf

Has anything changed in the last year to contradict this?

I don't think so. However, it's also very difficult to make 143/4s accessible but that hasn't stopped Porterbrook trying.

 

[tbtc]

• Interesting that there’s very little “Cassandra” stuff about these changes (other than the fact that the Unions will strike at some stage, which we can probably take as a given). Maybe that’s because they’ve tailored the changes to give a juicy titbit to lots of areas that may have seemed marginalised (Barrow, Bentham, Bishop Auckland, Bridlington...) and there’s the “good news” about Pacers/D78s (albeit at a fairly high political cost - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/407753/dft-permanent-secretary-to-sos.pdf - £250,000,000 over the life of the new franchise with only a BCR of 0.12 during that period)?
  
• Would be interesting to read the equivalent threads from 2003 about the “no growth” franchise that came about in 2004 – see who got what right / wrong in their predictions.
  
• As someone who’s argued consistently that the distribution of services to Manchester Airport have strangled capacity at Piccadilly (trying to get direct services from lots of different places meaning services reversing in the main shed, wasted platform capacity as you try to co-ordinate a path from Guide Bridge into a path to the Airport – and shut down the Stockport line four times an hour as services reverse from the Guide Bridge side to the Airport side), I can appreciate that the Ordsall Chord is going to allow some extra paths at Piccadilly, but I’m surprised that we are talking two or three extra services an hour in each direction over the Stockport Viaduct. Maybe if we’d restricted Airport services to only those on the Oxford Road corridor before then we could have had improved services to Cheshire etc years ago? (i.e. if all Airport services ran through 13/14 towards Oxford Road then we’d eliminate the conflicting movements and create more paths years before needing the Ordsall Chord )
  
• But, if you can get one extra service from Cheshire into Piccadilly for every “Airport reversal” in the main train shed that you eliminate (i.e. the Middlesbrough and York – Airport services moving to the Ordsall Chord meaning they don’t have to reverse in the main shed meaning spare capacity to introduce these extra Cheshire services) then it’s frustrating that the Cleethorpes service is still going to reverse in the main shed en route to the Airport. I’d cope if they terminated it at Piccadilly.
  
• Re Cheshire - If only 323s can cope with the “fast” services to Macclesfield/ Stoke then what does the fact that the Manchester – Macclesfield stopper is doubled in frequency mean? Does it mean 323s taken off the Airport duties, or maybe it means that a 100mph 319 could cope okay with running on the WCML? After all, they’ve coped with accelerating on the busy Brighton Main Line for many years, London Midland are going to use them on the southern end of the WCML, maybe the “319s can’t accelerate” argument has been overplayed?
  
• I agree with the comment from edwin_m about them dodging the difficult decisions (doesn’t seem to be any improvement for Bradford – Leeds or Leeds – Sheffield or Sheffield – Manchester or other flows between large places, but it’s a lot easier to path an extra DMU to pootle along quiet branchlines like Nunthorpe to Whitby, Lancaster to Skipton, Darlington to Bishop Auckland etc than it is to redraw the timetable at busy stations).
  
• Skip stopping on the “Transpennine Main Line” line sounds good to me, as long as places retain their existing level of service to Leeds/ Huddersfield/ Manchester. The railway can’t always provide direct links between every pair of stations on a line, and I’d rather have six well spaced services an hour than the current messy timetable, even if that means no direct service from Diggle to Greenfield.
  
• Similarly, skip stopping might make a big difference to the Hope Valley – where all intermediate stations are picked up by the bi-hourly Northern Pacer (meaning a big time differential between it and the 158/170/185s that run non-stop from Sheffield to Stockport). Since demand is going to be pretty minor from Grindleford to Hope, or Edale to Bamford, I don’t know why this isn’t explored here (slow down the “fast” services by a couple of minutes to stop at one intermediate station and use the smoothed timings to find room for more services).
  
• Re the TPE changes – I created a thread a while ago about “poorly served stations on busy/main lines” (since enthusiasts like to get excited about the idea of serving some quaint village that lacks a station or throwing lots of resources at lines with a “parliamentary” service and ignore the humdrum stations on existing routes where there’s no scope to squeeze more stoppers like Chester le Street). Batley was one of the main reasons for that thread – it’s always been in the shadow of Dewsbury but I think that it could see a *significant* increase in passenger numbers when it gets a proper faster service to Leeds/ Huddersfield (and a proper service to Manchester – ignoring the “magical mystery tour” it currently has via Todmorden). At the moment if I worked in Leeds and lived in Kirklees I’d have the choice of a Pacer making several stops before getting to Batley, or a 185 that was “first stop Dewsbury” then I’d go for the bigger/ faster train (much more attractive) – but I think Batley is an underperforming station that should shine with this improvement/ increase in service. Will be interesting to see if numbers for Dewsbury go down (i.e. how many Dewsbury passengers live closer to Batley but prefer to travel further to the station with the significantly better service).
  
• Given that (other than electrification) most of the infrastructure improvements are “Manchester Hub” ones (i.e. additional platforms, new chords, loops), I’m not sure how we are going to squeeze more services onto some already busy lines. For example, Manchester – Bolton is pretty busy at the moment (in terms of trains per hour). Add into the mix the hourly TPE service to Scotland, an extra Blackburn service every hour, increase the number of through services to Barrow (plus one extra Wigan service, which may not run via Bolton, but will certainly conflict at Salford)... how do you cram them all in? Same goes for the extra paths over Stockport viaduct, the extra services into Liverpool Lime Street... will we need new infrastructure to cope with all of this, or can we cram in more services without it?
  
• The electrification map still confuses me – one minute we are talking about cutting existing services to make the most of EMUs/ reduce diesels under the wires (i.e. cutting some Liverpool – Blackpool services to allow EMUs from Liverpool to Preston, cutting Scarborough/Middlesbrough’s services to Manchester to allow EMUs to run west of York) then we are talking about running extra DMUs long distances under the wires (doubling the TPE service over Chat Moss to Liverpool, running more DMUs from Lancaster to Manchester Airport (ex Barrow)... the whole thing looks a muddled compromise, with some trying to run a more efficient railway and others trying to retain direct links despite the money being spent on electrification. I’m not sure anyone is in control.
  
• The only changes to *other* franchises are the discussion of VTEC to Harrogate (i.e. pathing the Northern services between the improved Kings Cross services) and ATW to Manchester Airport – has anyone found reference to finding paths for other proposed improvements by other TOCs (like XC going via Leeds twice an hour, VTWC increasing Euston services, Open Access proposals)?
  
• Will any stations in northern England see *fewer* services as a result of these proposals? The only one that jumps out is the Metro Centre (no need for the current “shuttle” – though as this interworks with the through service to Morpeth, withdrawing it wouldn’t save a unit – unless you plan to cut the Morpeth service at Newcastle and run EMUs?)
  
• Also, will these changes improve the case for electrification of any lines in CP6? Half hourly on the Tyne Valley route to Carlisle brings it up to the benchmark for electrification. A third service on the Calder Valley route from Manchester to Bradford (presumably this will extend to Leeds at the expense of the Huddersfield – Brighouse service terminating in Bradford)? The increased frequencies mean Leeds – Harrogate looks to be more of a priority than it already was. With three of the four Liverpool – Warrington – Manchester services per hour planned to terminate in Manchester (i.e. the through service to Leeds moves to Chat Moss instead) then that surely makes a better case for wiring the line through Warrington Central. Have any other lines seen their prospects for electrification improved by the frequency enhancements (or remapped services) here?

 

[edwin_m]

As I see it the 120 new Northern DMU vehicles will be high-spec, and not just Pacer-replacements (hence D78s won't cut it).
I'd expect to see them on the Northern "express" routes.
DfT and the ROSCOs will want long-lasting multi-purpose stock, leaving local cascades to eliminate the Pacers.

I agree with most of that - they will want to use the new units on the services that will earn most money.

The ITT says the new trains will be totally new so can't be D78s. However there is scope to take on some D78s as well, and I'm fairly sure at least one bidder will offer them on shorter-distance services where the 60mph top speed doesn't matter. That is unless the prototype isn't finished in time, is a disaster performance-wise, or the interior is awful!

As an alternative to D78s they would have to bring in cascaded stock from somewhere else, as the number of new units is less than the number of Pacers to be replaced and that's before the extra trains needed for the enhanced services. Some of these will be EMUs, almost certainly 319s, but the only short term source of cascaded DMUs is Great Western. Getting some D78s may be less risky than relying on a cascade that depends on completion of GW electrification which is widely reported to be running late. Just imagine what people on here would say if we had a couple of dozen "Todmorden Curve" situations with no trains available to run the promised extra services!

 

[northwichcat]

Re Cheshire - If only 323s can cope with the “fast” services to Macclesfield/ Stoke then what does the fact that the Manchester – Macclesfield stopper is doubled in frequency mean? Does it mean 323s taken off the Airport duties, or maybe it means that a 100mph 319 could cope okay with running on the WCML?

Alderley Edge-Piccadilly services are timed for 75mph DMUs. In the event of a 323 shortage in the evening peak a Buxton service is quite often 2 carriages instead of 4 due to a 150 being taken for an Alderley Edge-Piccadilly working.

With Alderley Edge-Piccadilly being the lightest loaded electric service in the Manchester area, there would be a lot of empty seats if 319s are used instead of 323s.

What "South Manchester" services a 319 can and can't be used on might depend which services are timetabled to stop at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme and which run Stockport-Manchester non-stop and also the length of the journey. A Manchester-Stoke service has more chance of being caught up by Virgin/XC than a Manchester-Macclesfield service.

It only needs a small number of services for a 319 not to be able to work to justify not having 319s being the only west-side EMUs.

The electrification map still confuses me – one minute we are talking about cutting existing services to make the most of EMUs/ reduce diesels under the wires (i.e. cutting some Liverpool – Blackpool services to allow EMUs from Liverpool to Preston, cutting Scarborough/Middlesbrough’s services to Manchester to allow EMUs to run west of York) then we are talking about running extra DMUs long distances under the wires (doubling the TPE service over Chat Moss to Liverpool, running more DMUs from Lancaster to Manchester Airport (ex Barrow)... the whole thing looks a muddled compromise, with some trying to run a more efficient railway and others trying to retain direct links despite the money being spent on electrification. I’m not sure anyone is in control.

Use of OHEs really needs to be a compromise between effectively using them and meeting demand. It wouldn't be sensible to, for instance, terminate South TPE at Hazel Grove with a connecting EMU for Stockport/Piccadilly and the Airport.

With three of the four Liverpool – Warrington – Manchester services per hour planned to terminate in Manchester (i.e. the through service to Leeds moves to Chat Moss instead) then that surely makes a better case for wiring the line through Warrington Central. Have any other lines seen their prospects for electrification improved by the frequency enhancements (or remapped services) here?

I'm not sure if they will terminate in Manchester or whether they'll continue beyond. There isn't a requirement for them to continue beyond Manchester but it might making pathing easier for one or more to continue towards Northwich/New Mills Newtown.

 

[SprinterMan]

I am so confused by all of this All I can ascertain is Barton-Cleethorpes is going over to EMT. If anyone can answer any of these questions I would be very greatful:

Is the Windermere branch transferring to Northern?

Is TPE getting the LIV-NOT half of the current Liv-Norwich EMT service?

Is the D78 project still going ahead even though they are "not allowed"?

Adam