Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

[Nym]

Can always change locos at York?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What's the maximum line speed on the Pennine routes?

 

[RobShipway]

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

The answer to your question is no, as the class 68 has a top speed of only 100mph, whereas the class 67 has a top speed of 125mph.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

Would this be because the end of the currently extended First TPE franchise award is so much nearer and that matter is not now viewed as being worthy of taking forward in the time still left remaining.

 

[47802]

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

Any Loco haulage on TPE is likely to be temporary until the winning bidders new rolling stock is available, therefore any loco haulage would need to come from existing fleets rather than any additional loco order.

 

[D365]

Would this be because the end of the currently extended First TPE franchise award is so much nearer and that matter is not now viewed as being worthy of taking forward in the time still left remaining.

Or perhaps it's because, aside from sub-leasing a number of Class 170 units in the interim, there is not time enough to prepare any further additional DMU stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... therefore any loco haulage would need to come from existing fleets rather than any additional loco hauled order.

I'm under the impression that all the Mk3 coaching stock, that is in full working order, is in use. Is that quite true?

 

[47802]

Or perhaps it's because, aside from sub-leasing a number of Class 170 units in the interim, there is not time enough to prepare any further additional DMU stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm under the impression that all the Mk3 coaching stock, that is in full working order, is in use. Is that quite true?

I'm not sure but yes I don't think there is much spare MK3 wise so maybe have to be MK2's or 442's(runs for cover), given all the bidders have allegedly proposed new rolling stock probably Bi-mode it should only be required for a fairly short period.

Which is why in the grand scheme of things it might be more sensible to run a few more Loco hauled diagrams on Northern either/or down the Cumbrian coast or the S&C, but then a 5 coach 442 would be too long for either of those routes.

 

[Townsend Hook]

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.

I can't find anything referring to such an exemption in the Sectional Appendix.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What's the maximum line speed on the Pennine routes?

Short stretches of 85 east of Diggle (including inside Standedge Tunnel), otherwise 65-75. 90-100 Micklefield-York.
Locos will be limited to 110 on the WCML.
I'm not sure 67s are genuinely passed for 125, there are no regular services at that speed.

 

[47802]

Short stretches of 85 east of Diggle (including inside Standedge Tunnel), otherwise 65-75. 90-100 Micklefield-York.
Locos will be limited to 110 on the WCML.
I'm not sure 67s are genuinely passed for 125, there are no regular services at that speed.

Why would you want Loco's beyond 100mph capability anyway, no current North or South TPE service travels beyond 100mph, any Loco hauled solution is likely to only be a short term stopgap, while on the WCML it's not where the biggest problem is, in any case these services are meant to be 90% electric hauled.

 

[northwichcat]

Why would you want Loco's beyond 100mph capability anyway, no current North or South TPE service travels beyond 100mph, any Loco hauled solution is likely to only be a short term stopgap, while on the WCML it's not where the biggest problem is, in any case these services are meant to be 90% electric hauled.

It would be possible for Liverpool-Newcastle and Manchester Airport-Scotland services to travel at over 100mph if suitable rolling stock was used. With suggestions loco-hauled stock will be slower on certain sections, allowing services to be faster on certain sections may allow end-to-end journey times to be retained.

The minimum requirement for electric services on electric routes is only applicable from December 2019 so if bidders want to use diesel as an interim solution for Scottish services they can.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

How about diagrams on the Cumbrian Coast? Yes there are two sets already but two more maybe?

I think additional loco-hauled sets on the Cumbrian Coast would each release only a single 142 or 153. Whereas a single set on the S&C might free up two 158s. Better "bang for the buck"?

 

[northwichcat]

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.

Scotrail will be getting HSTs and new Hitachi EMUs in the next few years. The problem seems to be they lost some 170s to Southern before they were ready to release them.

From what I recall a rail journalist said DfT's unofficial rolling stock plan contained a major error (officially they don't have one) in that one person presumed once Manchester Airport-Blackpool went over to electric (which was scheduled to be done by 2016) TPE would be able to introduce an additional Manchester-Selby service using released stock. However, another person working on the spec for the next Southern franchise presumed TPE would be able to release some Turbostar carriages in time for Southern to use them by December 2016. By the time Chiltern snapped up the TPE 170s that left two franchises sort of stock and DfT without solutions. :roll:

 

[sprinterguy]

Platform 9 is also long enough at Newcastle for a loco+5 as is platform 1 so station capacity isnt an issue either

Where do you get that idea from? Platform 9 at Newcastle used to be a very tight squeeze for a 5-car class 158 formation, which had to draw right up to the buffer stops. The operational platform length is listed in the sectional appendix as 112 metres, which is in fact just short of the length of 5 x 23 metre carriages, so you certainly couldn't fit a loco in on top of that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm under the impression that all the Mk3 coaching stock, that is in full working order, is in use. Is that quite true?

At my last count (earlier this year), there were sixteen spare buffet vehicles (mainly loco hauled RFMs) and thirty one spare loco-hauled FO/TSO vehicles available. Ownership being split between Porterbrook, Arriva Rail and Direct Rail Services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can always change locos at York?

I can't see any train operator in this day and age suggesting loco changes en route, they'd rather run diesels under the wires. York doesn't seem very well set up for the sort of regular release moves (it does deal with occasional loco reversals on railtours and ad hoc run rounds of 91s quite well admittedly) that would be required, either.

 

[Stats]

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.

TPE will need to use P9 initially. Any change to services and through running north of Newcastle won't come in until December 2016 at the earliest. Through running to Edinburgh may require TPE services to have an extended dwell in Newcastle to allow XC or VT services to overtake and Network Rail have indicated through platform capacity at Newcastle may be an issue if this was to occur.

 

[northwichcat]

TPE will need to use P9 initially. Any change to services and through running north of Newcastle won't come in until December 2016 at the earliest. Through running to Edinburgh may require TPE services to have an extended dwell in Newcastle to allow XC or VT services to overtake and Network Rail have indicated through platform capacity at Newcastle may be an issue if this was to occur.

Looking at all the arrival/departures for Newcastle it looks like TPE are fine to use the through platforms for workings which have shortish turnarounds but need to use platform 9 for standard pattern services due to the long turnaround time.

Solutions could be:
1. Retiming southbound services to be later.
2. More services to Newcastle
3. Extending services beyond Newcastle.
4. Just shunting units in to sidings between services, instead of leaving them idle at a platform for so long.

 

[jopsuk]

At my last count (earlier this year), there were sixteen spare buffet vehicles (mainly loco hauled RFMs) and thirty one spare loco-hauled FO/TSO vehicles available. Ownership being split between Porterbrook, Arriva Rail and Direct Rail Services.

The catering vehicles can, albeit with a lot of work/expense, be turned into open saloon vehicles as FGW did. And obviously by changing the seats a FO becomes a TSO. So effectively, with different amounts of work required, that's 47 spare mark 3s.

If the idea is to form them up in trains with DVTs (or DBSOs!) these need to be modified to be compatible with the loco involved, and to avoid a driver having to be present in the rear loco remote fire fighting capability needs to be active in the loco. The carriages need appropriate through wiring too.

Lets go retro: 47s, mark 3s and a DBSO! They worked Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness/Aberdeen "back in the day".

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Theres always platforms 1 and 12. Would however require some northern and scotrail services to use 9 in lieu but thats not a major issue. Its a relatively simple swap.

I have never personally taken 6 into 9, and 6 wont fit. However 5 plus a loco MAY fit. I probably need to reword my post! As i currently dont sign locos and stock I have no requirement to know wether that will fit or not, but i do know where i can fit 3 or 6 on the north route and which doors need locking out. and yes i am aware of the curvature of the platforms, having myself been involved in a despatch incident at Newcastle. The number of despatch incidents being why TPE no longer uses platform 10.

Just remember what is being said on here is merely speculation and suggestion. Nothing is set in stone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Someone mentioned if 67's were authorised to 125

The answer is yes they are. It will f course depnd on what they are hauling but unfortunately they dont have enough grunt to get up to that speed, especially when dragging a 225 set in service with full ETH demands. It is not unknown for them to attain 105-110 but they tend to get looped to allow other trains to overtake and thereby not crippling the ECML timetable.

 

[glbotu]

Theres always platforms 1 and 12. Would however require some northern and scotrail services to use 9 in lieu but thats not a major issue. Its a relatively simple swap.

Except getting a train into platform 1 requires fouling the ECML twice (once to get from the down ECML to the High Level Bridge and again to get from the High Level Bridge to Platform 1). Not to mention Northern running into 9 would add an additional ECML conflict across the King Edward VII bridge.

According to the Sectional Appendix, 12 is actually shorter than 9 (108m instead of 112m).

 

[northwichcat]

Except getting a train into platform 1 requires fouling the ECML twice (once to get from the down ECML to the High Level Bridge and again to get from the High Level Bridge to Platform 1). Not to mention Northern running into 9 would add an additional ECML conflict across the King Edward VII bridge.

According to the Sectional Appendix, 12 is actually shorter than 9 (108m instead of 112m).

As Newcastle has 12 platforms and has significantly less services than Stockport with 6 platforms (even though the northbound terminus platform at Stockport is rarely used) I'm sure Newcastle will be able to sort out a solution.

 

[sprinterguy]

According to the Sectional Appendix, 12 is actually shorter than 9 (108m instead of 112m).

Indeed. The platform face itself has extra length (currently behind a barrier), but without some serious rejigging of the approaches to the bays the usable length is no greater than any of the other three (out of platforms 9 - 12). Crosscountry only schedule 4-car workings out of platform 12.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As Newcastle has 12 platforms and has significantly less services than Stockport with 6 platforms (even though the northbound terminus platform at Stockport is rarely used) I'm sure Newcastle will be able to sort out a solution.

As far as I know, there are few terminating services at Stockport: The majority are through trains. Newcastle has a mix of through and terminating services.

Four of the five bays at Newcastle are quite short, and of the five through platforms, two cause conflicts if services are crossing to them from the ECML. One of those through ECML platforms (platform 3 or sometimes 4) is often occupied for the greater part of the hour by the terminating Crosscountry service.

The turnaround times at Newcastle for the terminating Crosscountry and TPE services are certainly less than ideal to maximise platform usage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

4. Just shunting units in to sidings between services, instead of leaving them idle at a platform for so long.

I could see the Forth sidings branch coming back into use for stabling purposes, much as Virgin XC used to do some time ago.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

The DRS 88s are fitted with the 700kW diesel power hence the 950hp.

Versions are available with either a 1400kW or 2800kW engine, giving much more power when not under the wires.

As the first of these locos are not due until spring next year, I don't think it would be hard for DRS to specify an alternative engine if there is sufficient confidence in the market.

The ITT specifies a dedicated loco pool for any engines used in the franchise, therefore they could accept the initial batch with the 700kW engine and order a revised specification for the last ones, depending on how may would be required by TPE.

 

[swt_passenger]

Four of the five bays at Newcastle are quite short, and of the five through platforms, two cause conflicts if services are crossing to them from the ECML. One of those through ECML platforms (platform 3 or sometimes 4) is often occupied for the greater part of the hour by the terminating Crosscountry service.

Also probably worth noting, for anyone who doesn't already know, that four of Newcastle's through platform numbers are on the same island. At many (if not most) stations they'd probably just be numbered 5 and 6 and marked into A and B ends.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

According to the Sectional Appendix, 12 is actually shorter than 9 (108m instead of 112m).

Hmm..... Think i better put on for a review!

Just looked at 12, the signal could theoretically be moved to extend the working length but i cannot comment wether this will breach modern signalling guidelines.

Using 5/6 or 7/8 is feasible but then potentially upsets northern's services calling there, especially the carlisle-durham coast services. Sharing 3 or 4 with the XC terminator is a possibility that could be exploited instead, but not all the terminators stop there as a number of them use 10. This frees the platform for the Newcastle VTEC terminators on 3 and the southbound anglo scots on 4 (usually)

1 is often used by carlisle services which could move to 9 but then you sill have the problem of crossing the ECML on the KEB as well as the TPE as mentioned earlier blocking the ECML at gateshead (KEB south) and to access HLB. This does however become solved by extending TPE to scotland as has been suggested as they would simply take their turns using 2 and 4 to go north and south respectively. Such a service providing a regular clockface service to morpeth, alnmouth, berwick, dunbar and musselburgh could potentially create demand for service through northumberland as the current skip step service provides little for local service needs. Newcastle crews are gagging to sign Edinburgh ECML!

 

[northwichcat]

As far as I know, there are few terminating services at Stockport: The majority are through trains. Newcastle has a mix of through and terminating services.

Four of the five bays at Newcastle are quite short, and of the five through platforms, two cause conflicts if services are crossing to them from the ECML. One of those through ECML platforms (platform 3 or sometimes 4) is often occupied for the greater part of the hour by the terminating Crosscountry service.

The turnaround times at Newcastle for the terminating Crosscountry and TPE services are certainly less than ideal to maximise platform usage.

At peak times there are due to a lack of paths between Stockport and Manchester and guess what happens - the terminating trains (from Chester) cross all of the lines to get to either Newton Heath (via Denton) or to reverse and go towards Hazel Grove.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Looked at Newcastle bays again today. Plats 9-12 max 4 car and that doesnt leave much of an overlap. 12 could theoretically extended to 5 max, but existing platform curves away from the track then you have pointwork from 11 and the branch off to Forth Banks very shortly after would probably break signalling tolerances. Any platform extension would be cutting into the concourse area and could only go as far as the listed station overbridge. That realistically wont give us any more than 10m and would be effectively useless. So any oprion of running anything longer than 4 will need to be either part of an edinburgh extension or with more imaginative use of plats 5/6 or 7/8 and 1

 

[bluenoxid]

What about terminating the train at Heaton depot? One option might be to switch Cleethorpes to Northern units and merge the Middlesbrough and Newcastle services via Sunderland creating a big loop.

 

[glbotu]

What about terminating the train at Heaton depot? One option might be to switch Cleethorpes to Northern units and merge the Middlesbrough and Newcastle services via Sunderland creating a big loop.

Are you suggesting not going to Middlesbrough and going to Hartlepool/Sunderland instead or are you suggesting running 1 service ECML - Middlesbrough via Yarm and 1 service ECML - Middlesbrough via Newcastle/Sunderland?

Both have their problems, the former has the problem that Middlesbrough loses a rather important rail service, the latter has the problem that Middlesbrough already struggles with turning around 1 TPE service per hour. It's why any VTEC proposal is coupled (I think) with an extra platform face at Middlesbrough.

What about just turning it around in the Down/Up Slow. The tipping out would be well within the means of the station, the next Down service being usually around 15 minutes earlier. The only time when the Down/Up Slow is used is in the morning and evening when the platform occupancy isn't anywhere near as busy anyway (so you could just sit the train in Platform 3 or 4).

 

[L+Y]

I wonder if the announcement that TPex electrification is back on track, albeit delayed, increases the chances we'll be seeing locomotive haulage of a sort as a stop-gap prior to an all EMU fleet, rather than a new bimode fleet?

 

[Townsend Hook]

I wonder if the announcement that TPex electrification is back on track, albeit delayed, increases the chances we'll be seeing locomotive haulage of a sort as a stop-gap prior to an all EMU fleet, rather than a new bimode fleet?

There is always the possibility of bi-modes being ordered in order to cater for the likes of Hull/Cleethorpes, I would have thought. Even so, given the lead times on new stock nowadays, I would still expect some kind of loco-haulage in the mean time, either on the TPE route itself or elsewhere to cascade stock down to TPE (loco haulage by proxy ).