Northern/TPE Invitation to Tender published

[158756]

They could but will the range really be good enough.

What I was really asking was as it only says they must be capable of working on non-electrified routes, not that they must always run on non-electrified lines, could they get a unit capable of running on battery only to Marple, and use it mostly as a conventional EMU?

If DMUs are so expensive and no-one would want 30+ LHCS rakes around. Would also mean not having to rely on future improvements in battery technology.

 

[WatcherZero]

Out of interest what is the current range of the battery EMU with GA?

60 miles apparently and needs a 3:5 non electric to electrified track ratio to recharge. So for example it could manage a 30mile branchline at the risk of running out but would need to run for 100 miles on electric track to fully recharge.

To make room for the six battery rafts they had to remove the motor converter and motored bogie from a DMSO car, lock out of use the toilet and remove the retention tanks and relocate the auxillary batteries to the other DMSO car. Would tend to suggest a production model would require a dedicated battery holding trailer added to the formation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What I was really asking was as it only says they must be capable of working on non-electrified routes, not that they must always run on non-electrified lines, could they get a unit capable of running on battery only to Marple, and use it mostly as a conventional EMU?

Have TfGM given up on the idea of tram-trains to Marple?

 

[47802]

60 miles apparently and needs a 3:5 non electric to electrified track ratio to recharge. So for example it could manage a 30mile branchline at the risk of running out but would need to run for 100 miles on electric track to fully recharge.

To make room for the six battery rafts they had to remove the motor converter and motored bogie from a DMSO car, lock out of use the toilet and remove the retention tanks and relocate the auxillary batteries to the other DMSO car. Would tend to suggest a production model would require a dedicated battery holding trailer added to the formation.

Personally I would think that the range at this stage, recharge ratio and the current level of electrification in the Northern area would make them a difficult choice at present.

It would seem to me that are good reasons for building some new DMU's or Diesel Bi-Modes in the next few years before the next set of emission regulations come into force, yes they are going to cost more than an EMU but an EMU can not fix the problem at present.

 

[jopsuk]

60 miles apparently and needs a 3:5 non electric to electrified track ratio to recharge. So for example it could manage a 30mile branchline at the risk of running out but would need to run for 100 miles on electric track to fully recharge.

To make room for the six battery rafts they had to remove the motor converter and motored bogie from a DMSO car, lock out of use the toilet and remove the retention tanks and relocate the auxillary batteries to the other DMSO car. Would tend to suggest a production model would require a dedicated battery holding trailer added to the formation.

At the very least, would require some serious thought about battery position and packaging. I would have thought that if starting from scratch that a better arrangement could be devised.

Strikes me that the Desiro design has far more space under the non-motor carriages. Might be a better platform?

 

[northwichcat]

Have TfGM given up on the idea of tram-trains to Marple?

No. Marple's still their preferred choice for a first tram-train scheme in the Manchester area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The ITT says that the new stock must be capable of operating on non-electrified routes and that IPEMUs with comparable range to the unit being tested by Greater Anglia would count.

They'd have to find useful routes for using them on though, as well as trying to trying to get as many Pacers as possible withdrawn by their introduction. I don't think the 379 with a battery is versatile enough to be used by Northern.

 

[edwin_m]

No. Marple's still their preferred choice for a first tram-train scheme in the Manchester area.

I agree. The tram-train isn't mentioned in the franchise documents as far as I can see, and probably wouldn't now happen during the franchise term although it would be possible to vary the franchise if they decided to go for it sooner.

They'd have to find useful routes for using them on though, as well as trying to trying to get as many Pacers as possible withdrawn by their introduction. I don't think the 379 with a battery is versatile enough to be used by Northern.

I agree with that too. While the ITT doesn't forbid it I can't imagine a bidder would score very highly by offering effectively an EMU with an off-wire capability that's only useable on a handful of routes. If such a bid did win the franchise it would face extra costs from developing and operating something non-standard, heavier and more expensive than an standard EMU for very little extra benefit. They would also have to invest in a heavy refurbishment of some other DMU to meet the standards required by Regional service, unless they could be sure the IPEMU would reliably work to Barrow and back, which is probably the worst case and at 29 miles from the wires just within the range stated above!

By contrast a bi-mode would happily cope with Barrow and could also be useful on mainly non-electrified Regional* routes such as Nottingham-Leeds and York-Blackpool and perhaps also electrified ones like Manchester-Blackpool.

*I haven't yet found the full list of Regional routes apart from those NW of Manchester, so I am assuming the others would either be required to meet this standard or the operator would choose to offer it.

 

[northwichcat]

By contrast a bi-mode would happily cope with Barrow and could also be useful on mainly non-electrified Regional* routes such as Nottingham-Leeds and York-Blackpool and perhaps also electrified ones like Manchester-Blackpool.

The problem with using them on electrified routes is you'll need more of them. You could, for instance, run Buxton to Preston using using bi-mode or an EMU with a battery (instead of Hazel Grove-Preston) but that'll free up less Sprinter vehicles in proportion to the number of new vehicles than acquiring DMUs or DEMUs (without pantographs) for Buxton to Manchester services (not continuing to an electrified destination beyond Manchester.)

*I haven't yet found the full list of Regional routes apart from those NW of Manchester, so I am assuming the others would either be required to meet this standard or the operator would choose to offer it.

From what I've seen it's the routes transferring to Northern from TPE - Manchester Airport to Blackpool/Cumbria and Manchester to Warrington to Liverpool semi-fasts. Additionally the new Chester-Bradford-Leeds service. It seems other routes are up to bidders.

 

[BantamMenace]

I agree with that too. While the ITT doesn't forbid it I can't imagine a bidder would score very highly by offering effectively an EMU with an off-wire capability that's only useable on a handful of routes. If such a bid did win the franchise it would face extra costs from developing and operating something non-standard, heavier and more expensive than an standard EMU for very little extra benefit. They would also have to invest in a heavy refurbishment of some other DMU to meet the standards required by Regional service, unless they could be sure the IPEMU would reliably work to Barrow and back, which is probably the worst case and at 29 miles from the wires just within the range stated above!

By contrast a bi-mode would happily cope with Barrow and could also be useful on mainly non-electrified Regional* routes such as Nottingham-Leeds and York-Blackpool and perhaps also electrified ones like Manchester-Blackpool.

*I haven't yet found the full list of Regional routes apart from those NW of Manchester, so I am assuming the others would either be required to meet this standard or the operator would choose to offer it.

For the layover at barrow could electrification of the station be done so it could sit there with the pant up or could a charging point be built? Admittedly it would prevent quick turnarounds when delays occur.

 

[Greybeard33]

At the very least, would require some serious thought about battery position and packaging. I would have thought that if starting from scratch that a better arrangement could be devised.

Strikes me that the Desiro design has far more space under the non-motor carriages. Might be a better platform?

The 379 was chosen as a "worst case" to prove the concept, being a heavy unit with high hotel loads. A lighter unit without aircon would have better range. However, regenerative braking is essential. So an older unit with dc motors would need re-tractioning (Porterbrook is offering a 319 retractioning mod).

Effective range could be improved by providing a recharging supply at unelectrified terminal stations. The batteries are charged from the 750V dc traction bus, so it is not essential to have a 25kV feed. It could be a small substation from the local mains supply.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From what I've seen it's the routes transferring to Northern from TPE - Manchester Airport to Blackpool/Cumbria and Manchester to Warrington to Liverpool semi-fasts. Additionally the new Chester-Bradford-Leeds service. It seems other routes are up to bidders.

I'm not sure the Chester-Leeds is designated as "Regional".
The CLC Regional is also a little odd, as a local shuttle.
No doubt the bidders will have more such routes, but I guess the DfT was just ensuring the routes transferred from TPE would not be downgraded.
There's also the 1st Class situation - Northern don't have any at the moment.
That's not mandatory on Regional I think.

 

[47802]

For the layover at barrow could electrification of the station be done so it could sit there with the pant up or could a charging point be built? Admittedly it would prevent quick turnarounds when delays occur.

We are sorry but the 10-50 train to Manchester Airport is delayed while the batteries recharge

OK it might be possible a new Aventra/Desiro City battery might offer a bit better range but my money is on a straight DMU or Diesel/Electric Bi-Mode, obviously you could use a Bi-mode for these regional services, but you could also use refurbished 158's or 170's if you can get them for the non electrified regionals.

 

[edwin_m]

A 25kV charging point would need to provide a significant amount of power and would be an expensive piece of kit as well as requiring a fairly serious Grid connection. I can't see it being worth providing even one of these (and several might be needed in different places) just to allow use of an IPEMU.

 

[IanXC]

A 25kV charging point would need to provide a significant amount of power and would be an expensive piece of kit as well as requiring a fairly serious Grid connection. I can't see it being worth providing even one of these (and several might be needed in different places) just to allow use of an IPEMU.

Seems 25kV is not required for this kind of set up.

Effective range could be improved by providing a recharging supply at unelectrified terminal stations. The batteries [on the battery 379] are charged from the 750V dc traction bus, so it is not essential to have a 25kV feed. It could be a small substation from the local mains supply.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure the Chester-Leeds is designated as "Regional".
The CLC Regional is also a little odd, as a local shuttle.

On checking it isn't but it's mentioned in the same paragraph as regional Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool services

This means that from December 2017, Warrington Central and Birchwood
will no longer be served by the current direct TPE services that run to Leeds
and beyond, but Northern will operate a replacement service between
Liverpool Lime Street, Warrington Central and central Manchester. This will
become one of the specified high-quality ‘Northern regional’ routes described
at sections 4.10 and 4.62. Warrington will also benefit from the new Northern
service that is to operate between Chester, Warrington Bank Quay and
central Manchester, which will extend on to Leeds via the Calder Valley. This
service will provide passengers from Warrington with the opportunity of a
direct service to Leeds – from Warrington Bank Quay and via the Calder Valley
– if they prefer to avoid a change of trains in central Manchester.

In another section it says the regional service will be a Manchester Airport service

Liverpool-Manchester Airport via Warrington Central: As explained in
section 4.23, a ‘Northern regional’ service will be specified to run from
Liverpool to Manchester Airport via Warrington Central by December
2017.

 

[Viscount702]

To pick up on the above, errors and inconsistencies appear in the consultation response, ITT an December 2017 timetable.

On Liverpool - Airport trains I can't see there are any specific ones mentioned or shown in the timetable on either Chat Moss or CLC. Will there be any direct trains and on which routes.

The quotes picked out above are not only incorrect in their references but also inconsistent.

It also in another paragraph said the New Chester -Leeds via Calder Valley would go via Warrington Central rather than Bank Quay as in the quotes above.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Anyone noticed the unusual Ellesmere Port requirement for a Ellesmere Port-Manchester service arriving at Victoria between 08:00 and 08:59 but the next direct Ellesmere Port-Manchester service not until after the evening peak and no services in the other direction!

The useless almost Parliamentary service currently will become a useful peak service for commuters to Manchester. Am I correct that these are minimum service provisions?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It also in another paragraph said the New Chester -Leeds via Calder Valley would go via Warrington Central rather than Bank Quay as in the quotes above.

I think we can safely say that Warrington Central will not be served on the Chester-Calder Valley-Leeds service.

Also, statements made in the consultation response hardly have the same status as a requirement in the ITT.
But then, the DfT can contract what it likes within the scope of the ITT.
It may look a bit different when we get to a contract award against a particular bid.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The useless almost Parliamentary service currently will become a useful peak service for commuters to Manchester. Am I correct that these are minimum service provisions?

I do wonder as to the expected loadings on this newly established route.

 

[Viscount702]

I think we can safely say that Warrington Central will not be served on the Chester-Calder Valley-Leeds service.

Also, statements made in the consultation response hardly have the same status as a requirement in the ITT.
But then, the DfT can contract what it likes within the scope of the ITT.
It may look a bit different when we get to a contract award against a particular bid.

The main point about my post was the apparent lack off a requirement of direct train from Liverpool to the Airport despite the consultation implying one and that it would be a Regional Service via Warrington Central

 

[158756]

Anyone noticed the unusual Ellesmere Port requirement for a Ellesmere Port-Manchester service arriving at Victoria between 08:00 and 08:59 but the next direct Ellesmere Port-Manchester service not until after the evening peak and no services in the other direction!

One service is required in the other direction, departing Manchester between 1700 and 1759. Which oddly seems to suggest Manchester-Chester being half-hourly except at peak times.

On a related note, does anyone know the thinking behind keeping Liverpool-Warrington BQ, but still with a peak train missing? (only 2 departures required 1600-1859)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The main point about my post was the apparent lack off a requirement of direct train from Liverpool to the Airport despite the consultation implying one and that it would be a Regional Service via Warrington Central

Yes, if you believe all the text there will be 2 through trains, one via Newton le Willows (the one that has just gone electric), and one via Warrington Central (which would have to be diesel).
Doesn't seem right to me.
I think it's more likely the Warrington one will terminate at Oxford Road.

 

[Viscount702]

Yes, if you believe all the text there will be 2 through trains, one via Newton le Willows (the one that has just gone electric), and one via Warrington Central (which would have to be diesel).
Doesn't seem right to me.
I think it's more likely the Warrington one will terminate at Oxford Road.

If one runs on the Chat Moss it seems to be all stations rather than a semi fast as now. Also there seems to be no stopper From Liverpool to Victoria.

Can it terminate at Oxford Road? If the hub proposals go forward as envisaged platform 5 at Oxford Road will go and terminating on the other platforms won't be feasible so it would have to go to Piccadilly at least and therefore the Airport seems more sensible and that is what is implied if not stated as a requirement.

 

[edwin_m]

Seems 25kV is not required for this kind of set up.

Perhaps not, but the train would then need third rail pickup shoes, or some other way of feeding itself with 750V. Not rocket science but more complication. The power requirement of the substation would also be about the same as the 25kV version - I don't know if it's easier to provide the same power at a lower voltage but there would then be some extra loss from voltage drop if the higher voltage supply was further away.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Not having time to read 28 pages of previous postings, apologies if I am repeating what others might have said but ...

Is the specification of a number of Leeds - Hebden Bridge services continuing to Blackpool a device to give bidders the option of diverting the existing Blackpool service via Brighouse, thus threatening to cut Bradford/Halifax - Preston/Blackpool links?

 

[Cheshire Rover]

I do wonder as to the expected loadings on this newly established route.

It will be interesting one. There are quite a few who travel to Helsby and Frodsham from E Port and Elton to catch the peak trains to Manchester in addition to the locals. I suppose it is more the case of how many this can attract? On a personal note the route and timings are perfect.

 

[Greybeard33]

Perhaps not, but the train would then need third rail pickup shoes, or some other way of feeding itself with 750V. Not rocket science but more complication. The power requirement of the substation would also be about the same as the 25kV version - I don't know if it's easier to provide the same power at a lower voltage but there would then be some extra loss from voltage drop if the higher voltage supply was further away.

The advantage of DC is that the substation can be a balanced three phase load on the grid, which is easier to feed than a large single phase load. AC electrified lines have different sections on different phases and aggregate the loads into a few high power grid feed points. Then there are nearly always trains somewhere drawing power from each phase, so minimising the imbalance. But it could be costly to provide a 25kV feeder along an unelectrified branch line from the nearest electrified line.

750V DC tramways, e.g. Metrolink, have multiple small substations around the network - I should think a similar one would have more than enough capacity to charge a single IPEMU.

 

[Bevan Price]

If I interpret the statement (below) correctly, it appears that Sankey (for Penketh) service may be reduced to near "parliamentary level" once Warrington West station has been built & opened.:-


"The specified calls at Warrington West are required only once the station is open. Once Warrington West is open, the requirement for calls at Sankey for Penketh shall be one peak hour train per direction on weekdays."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If one runs on the Chat Moss it seems to be all stations rather than a semi fast as now. Also there seems to be no stopper From Liverpool to Victoria.

Can it terminate at Oxford Road? If the hub proposals go forward as envisaged platform 5 at Oxford Road will go and terminating on the other platforms won't be feasible so it would have to go to Piccadilly at least and therefore the Airport seems more sensible and that is what is implied if not stated as a requirement.

The proposals include a limited peak hour only service between Liverpool Lime St. & Manchester Victoria. There are 2 proposed TPE paths via this route, of which at least one per hour should call at St. Helens Junction and/or Newton Le Willows. Also, on the Chat Moss section, the Chester - Manchester Victoria - Calder Valley service is proposed to call at Newton Le Willows, but not at Earlestown.

 

[WatcherZero]

A 25kV charging point would need to provide a significant amount of power and would be an expensive piece of kit as well as requiring a fairly serious Grid connection. I can't see it being worth providing even one of these (and several might be needed in different places) just to allow use of an IPEMU.

Not ust a dedicated charger, you also have to consider their impact on existing electrified stretches, they would essentially be drawing twice as much power as normal, if you have a couple of them operating you may have to actually beef up the existing electrification supply to meet demand and they may possibly be creating under voltage brown spots in the network.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The proposals include a limited peak hour only service between Liverpool Lime St. & Manchester Victoria.

The off-peak trains on the Chat Moss route between Liverpool and Manchester appear to be there, just as now (1tph to Warrington BQ, 1tph to Manchester - station not specified).