Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

[ainsworth74]

They definatley can - there are no 170 worked services to Hull in the current timetable - TP only use 185s to Hull now.

Just to add a bit more detail to this, a TPE guard clarified the situation regarding 185s going to Hull a few years ago on this forum:

There are no particular problems, other than that on the section of line east of Selby where there are differential (higher) speeds for sprinters, they can't run at the sprinter speeds - unlike the 170s. They are given the same times in the schedule as their superior acceleration compared to a 170 means that there is negligible time differences between the two classes.

There are quite a few diagrams for 185's to Hull at various points during the day. The 1842 from Manchester to Hull is booked one as well for example.

 

[Viscount702]

Just to add a bit more detail to this, a TPE guard clarified the situation regarding 185s going to Hull a few years ago on this forum:

Noted and thanks

 

[WatcherZero]

The reason was something like a weak bridge wasn't it, so the heavier 185's couldn't go over it as fast.

 

[northwichcat]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't TPE still use a Class 185 unit on one of the Blackpool diagrams? Perhaps a Northern 156 for this and some more Class 319 working by Northern.

TPE still do, plus they use 185s to Barrow and Windermere. However, the TPE ITT stated they will initially need to be able to sublease 185s to Northern for the services which transfer.

319s in their current state won't meet the franchise requirement for the 'Regional Express' standard stock on Blackpool and Windermere services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good luck fitting LHCS into Platform 9 at Newcastle!

Why is there such a big fuss about TPE not being able to fit longer trains on to platform 9? All the pre-07:30 and post-19:00 TPE services at Newcastle use through platforms and if the winning TPE bidder takes up the option of extending services to Edinburgh then I'm sure they won't be using platform 9 however long the formation is.

 

[ainsworth74]

The reason was something like a weak bridge wasn't it, so the heavier 185's couldn't go over it as fast.

No there are a number of areas where there are SP differentials that 170s can use but 185s cannot. The Selby Swing bridge had some pretty severe speed restrictions on it but seeing as everything calls at Selby this wasn't a that big of an issue.

 

[Viscount702]

TPE still do, plus they use 185s to Barrow and Windermere. However, the TPE ITT stated they will initially need to be able to sublease 185s to Northern for the services which transfer.

TPE don't have the stock to run those services now and are "borrowing" sub standard stock from Northern. The services will transfer to Northern but TPE won't have based on what we currently know the stock to loan to Northern.

The ITT was published before Chiltern pinched the 170s. If the 170s had stayed with TPE they could have loaned the 185s to Northern but I can't see how they can do that now.

 

[northwichcat]

TPE don't have the stock to run those services now and are "borrowing" sub standard stock from Northern. The services will transfer to Northern but TPE won't have based on what we currently know the stock to loan to Northern.

The ITT was published before Chiltern pinched the 170s. If the 170s had stayed with TPE they could have loaned the 185s to Northern but I can't see how they can do that now.

You're wrong about the ITT I'm afraid. The TPE ITT makes reference to the 6 x 156s not being loaned from Northern to TPE after the end of the current franchise and also to TPE receiving 4 x 2 car DMUs equivalent to the 170s to replace those heading to Chiltern.

 

[47802]

You're wrong about the ITT I'm afraid. The TPE ITT makes reference to the 6 x 156s not being loaned from Northern to TPE after the end of the current franchise and also to TPE receiving 4 x 2 car DMUs equivalent to the 170s to replace those heading to Chiltern.

Well we know that you like to quote the ITT endlessly however that doesn't mean that their might be some variation in it, if the only solution requires additional loco haulage in the short term then it might be better to have additional loco haulage on Northern rather than both Loco haulage on Northern and TPE.

 

[Viscount702]

You're wrong about the ITT I'm afraid. The TPE ITT makes reference to the 6 x 156s not being loaned from Northern to TPE after the end of the current franchise and also to TPE receiving 4 x 2 car DMUs equivalent to the 170s to replace those heading to Chiltern.

You are correct. I could have sworn that the ITT was published prior to the 170 fiasco.

It does say TPE must lease some units to Northern but not which. However the position on stock is in such chaos anything could happen. As I implied above I don't think the 185s ,350 and temporary 4 other units alone are sufficient for TPE to run the service if they have to lease out units to Northern.

I think that TPE will for a while have to use loco stock on say the Newcastle or some other service including end door stock which I still believe is not the huge problem that some people make it out to be. Lets be frank end door stock is used on many "commuter" routes into London and I don't hear any complaints there.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No there are a number of areas where there are SP differentials that 170s can use but 185s cannot. The Selby Swing bridge had some pretty severe speed restrictions on it but seeing as everything calls at Selby this wasn't a that big of an issue.

East of Micklefield the Hull line is signed for speeds of 75/SP90 on several sections which makes quite a difference over 20 miles or so.
Selby Swing Bridge is 25mph for all trains.
Presumably HSTs and 180s also take the lower speed.

 

[Iskra]

East of Micklefield the Hull line is signed for speeds of 75/SP90 on several sections which makes quite a difference over 20 miles or so.
Selby Swing Bridge is 25mph for all trains.
Presumably HSTs and 180s also take the lower speed.

I thought HST's don't have to take the lower speed, for some reason I think they're an exception.

^Would be quite excited for some LHCS on TPE as is being discussed.

 

[Jonny]

TPE still do, plus they use 185s to Barrow and Windermere. However, the TPE ITT stated they will initially need to be able to sublease 185s to Northern for the services which transfer.

319s in their current state won't meet the franchise requirement for the 'Regional Express' standard stock on Blackpool and Windermere services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why is there such a big fuss about TPE not being able to fit longer trains on to platform 9? All the pre-07:30 and post-19:00 TPE services at Newcastle use through platforms and if the winning TPE bidder takes up the option of extending services to Edinburgh then I'm sure they won't be using platform 9 however long the formation is.

Well, between 7.30 and 19.00 most current TPE services are routed into P9, as Platforms 2 to 4 are needed for VTEC and XC, Platform 1 means a detour over the High Level Bridge, and Platforms 5 to 8 are two platforms disguised as four and using them would seriously mess up the Northern Rail / local services. Platform 10 is a no-no (and no longer either), Platform 11 is a bit short as well, and while Plat. 12 may be a bit longer, it loses a lot on the signalling overlap.

Of course, going Northward to Edinburgh would solve the blockage problem, but that's probably too far over the planning horizon.

 

[northwichcat]

You are correct. I could have sworn that the ITT was published prior to the 170 fiasco.

You were probably thinking of the Northern Direct Award agreement which was done before the 170 fiasco and said Northern won't lose any stock without getting replacements. Hence 6 extra 319s to replace 6 x 156s and the splitting up of Liverpool to Blackpool so Northern can actually use the additional 319s.

 

[Class377/5]

It could be longer... If the new franchise goes down the new rolling stock route or even seeks to use cascaded stock from franchises with new stock on the way, it could be 2-3 years before the new franchise is in a place to deliver the rolling stock plans in their respective bid.

Unlikely or the DfT is going to have to explain why are ordering the units to do so when they are required in service next year. That's been publicly announced so would a u turn especially as they are about to do lots of blocks to extend the platforms meaning the line will be shut between the peaks at one point for to be done!

Is there major differences in the configuration of all the pipes and cables that run from an intermediate coach to an end coach?

Making sure all units are the same. Space is limited with normal one 171 worked on at a time. It's a busy depot too.

given where they where designed and built, proberbly...

Like!

 

[Viscount702]

Well with Scotrail now claiming they are short of stock and looking for more including more loco hauled will anything be left for TPE/northern even if they want it.

 

[Haydn1971]

How long would it take to 'chilternise' some Mk.3 coaches for TPE and shove them in a 6 car formation for the more limited stop services? (Liverpool - Newcastle for example, where the 125 running would help make up a little for the dwell times)

I'd expect a slight reluctance with the Mk4's starting to become free in a couple of years from now - just need a diesel loco and some driving trailers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unlikely or the DfT is going to have to explain why are ordering the units to do so when they are required in service next year. That's been publicly announced so would a u turn especially as they are about to do lots of blocks to extend the platforms meaning the line will be shut between the peaks at one point for to be done!

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but are you expecting the 120 new trains for Northern to be in service in 2016 ???

 

[RobShipway]

I'd expect a slight reluctance with the Mk4's starting to become free in a couple of years from now - just need a diesel loco and some driving trailers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Perhaps I'm missing something here, but are you expecting the 120 new trains for Northern to be in service in 2016 ???

The only way that I can see Northern/TPE getting extra trains even on a limited basis is through new trains being delivered to other TOC's and the existing stock that they use cascaded down.

Any new Northern/TPE stock would not be available until 2017 at the earliest and that would be through electrification of lines which is currently on hold at the moment.

 

[Greybeard33]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't TPE still use a Class 185 unit on one of the Blackpool diagrams? Perhaps a Northern 156 for this and some more Class 319 working by Northern.

The remaining Blackpool-Airport 185 diagram forms half of a portion working south of Preston, with the other 185 going to/coming from Barrow or Windermere. 156s cannot couple to a 185, but neither can a 75mph 156 be used for the Barrow or Windermere portion, because these services are pathed for 100mph stock and are chased up/down the WCML by Virgin services. Therefore this Blackpool diagram has to remain a 185, in order to maintain through services between Barrow/Windermere and Manchester Airport.

Well we know that you like to quote the ITT endlessly however that doesn't mean that their might be some variation in it, if the only solution requires additional loco haulage in the short term then it might be better to have additional loco haulage on Northern rather than both Loco haulage on Northern and TPE.

Can you suggest some additional Northern services that loco hauled stock might be able to operate satisfactorily?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Jokes aside, it seems the upper managers of TPE are taking the 442 option seriously. I was chatting to Nick Donovan during the 3 peaks, and although we joked about using 50's he did mention that 67's were available to haul and propel them. With the removal of their traction equipment and modified to work with a 67 we have a 5 car set easily capable of 110mph, so their use on Liverpool - Newcastle runs does become feasable. May not be ideal but its better than nothing, the only station that may be an issue is Chester-le-Street due to its length but a 5 car voyager will fit. Platform 9 may belong enough at Newcastle for a loco+5 although not knowing the exact lengths im not entirely sure, as is platform 1 definately is as we sometimes run 6 cars into there so station capacity isnt an issue either.

 

[D365]

I was chatting to Nick Donovan during the 3 peaks, and although we joked about using 50's he did mention that 67's were available to haul and propel them.

DRS is awaiting 17 more Class 68s, so I imagine that they are anticipating further demand for LHCS.

 

[Iskra]

The remaining Blackpool-Airport 185 diagram forms half of a portion working south of Preston, with the other 185 going to/coming from Barrow or Windermere. 156s cannot couple to a 185, but neither can a 75mph 156 be used for the Barrow or Windermere portion, because these services are pathed for 100mph stock and are chased up/down the WCML by Virgin services. Therefore this Blackpool diagram has to remain a 185, in order to maintain through services between Barrow/Windermere and Manchester Airport.
Can you suggest some additional Northern services that loco hauled stock might be able to operate satisfactorily?

Arriva Trains Northern used to do the Settle Carlisle with 37's, so that could work.

The Leeds-Nottingham express service would be good for LHCS IMO.

 

[alexl92]

DRS is awaiting 17 more Class 68s, so I imagine that they are anticipating further demand for LHCS.

I've probably mentioned this before but DRS were asked last year to quote for operating TPE's Newcastle - Liverpool service with LHCS. Not heard anything since though.

 

[Class 170101]

Can you suggest some additional Northern services that loco hauled stock might be able to operate satisfactorily?

Arriva Trains Northern used to do the Settle Carlisle with 37's, so that could work.

How about diagrams on the Cumbrian Coast? Yes there are two sets already but two more maybe?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've probably mentioned this before but DRS were asked last year to quote for operating TPE's Newcastle - Liverpool service with LHCS. Not heard anything since though.

Didn't this lose time when tried last year - for the Tour of France around Yorkshire as I recall.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I've probably mentioned this before but DRS were asked last year to quote for operating TPE's Newcastle - Liverpool service with LHCS. Not heard anything since though.

Words have been circulated suggesting DRS have got a contract heading their way. TPE and DRS have worked together on a few occasions before, but where this stands with TPE's drivers, especially at Newcastle and Liverpool depots who drive the majority of the LIV-NCL services remains to be seen. I would expect the traincrew will be trained to work the services rather than using DRS crews.

Of course nothing official has been announced, and the word is purely speculative....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DRS is awaiting 17 more Class 68s, so I imagine that they are anticipating further demand for LHCS.

The 68's often get mentioned, but then there is the issue of build time. If it takes 6 months say to build a locomotive, surely in that time a suitable unit could also be built

Then again there is the mythical creature that is the 88, again these could be used, but i suppose it would depend on wether the donkey engine is enough to haul a load of 5 over the pennine hills, 950hp is about 2/3 the power of a 73 or indeed under a 442 now, and half what a 185 puts into the track with just 3 cars in comparison. To its favour the possibility of using the juice NCL-YRK and MCV-LIV being an advantage to the 88's

 

[47802]

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


Then again there is the mythical creature that is the 88, again these could be used, but i suppose it would depend on wether the donkey engine is enough to haul a load of 5 over the pennine hills, 950hp is about 2/3 the power of a 73 or indeed under a 442 now, and half what a 185 puts into the track with just 3 cars in comparison. To its favour the possibility of using the juice NCL-YRK and MCV-LIV being an advantage to the 88's

Erm! I don't think so, In the word of John McEnroe you cannot be serious.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Seems to be a line missing from my post, Somehow i dont think 950 horses is enough to get over the hills either......

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would class 67s be able to handle trains across the Pennines?

 

[D365]

Would class 67s be able to handle trains across the Pennines?

They've worked the Caledonian Sleeper north of Edinburgh/Glasgow before the Serco takeover, so the Pennines should be a doddle. Though I'm not sure why you'd want to use a Class 67 when the 68 is far superior as a mixed-traffic locomotive.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Because the 67's are already here whereas the 68's are under construction. Looking like more will need to be built. However, DRS is the most likely traction provider so 68's would be most logical. Dont think we will know anything for sure until the next franchise winner is announced

 

[Jonny]

Because the 67's are already here whereas the 68's are under construction. Looking like more will need to be built. However, DRS is the most likely traction provider so 68's would be most logical. Dont think we will know anything for sure until the next franchise winner is announced

Ah, but do DRS have anything that is diesel AND 110 mph capable?