Possible TPE fleet reductions?

[nr758123]

It was traditionally Middlesbrough. Do they really need to do something that is a bit akin to extending Avanti Liverpool services onto Merseyrail to Crosby?

Yes, so that Mayor Houchen can claim the credit and put it in his election literature. Such things are important, apparently.

 

[Greybeard33]

Hull definitely isn’t running through to Liverpool, at least not for the majority of the day, in the current timetable.

Hull - Liverpool is hourly all day in the current LTP timetable - see for example:

Realtime Trains | Departures from Hull all day on 08/04/2023

Train information at Hull all day on 08/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[RailWonderer]

And they ran Manchester - Barrow, Windermere and the Anglo Scots before the 350/4s then 397s took over. Crazy in hindsight that more units weren’t ordered from the start.

So in short, no there isn’t any scope for cutting TPE’s fleet back. Anyone suggesting there’s scope for cutting the fleet, especially on the North TPE route, clearly doesn’t remember just how packed it was across the Pennines on a single 185 back when they were all there was on TPE!

It was traditionally Middlesbrough. Do they really need to do something that is a bit akin to extending Avanti Liverpool services onto Merseyrail to Crosby?

Always thought the case was weak to extend beyond Middlesbrough in the first place. I understand the operational convenice of a bay platform there but further on to Saltburn?

 

[DanNCL]

Hull - Liverpool is hourly all day in the current LTP timetable - see for example:

Realtime Trains | Departures from Hull all day on 08/04/2023

Train information at Hull all day on 08/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I must have looked on a day with engineering works then!

Always thought the case was weak to extend beyond Middlesbrough in the first place. I understand the operational convenice of a bay platform there but further on to Saltburn?

The whole reason for it is because there isn’t a safe walking route at the location at the start of the Whitby branch previously used for reversing at Middlesbrough to allow the driver to change ends on a 6 car 185 formation (or a 68+Mark 5 set for that matter). Redcar Central doesn’t have a bay platform, the service reverses in the Saltburn bound platform and only 4 coaches are platformed.

The better option compared to extending to Saltburn in service would have been running empty to James Cook to reverse there, the platform being the safe walking route between the two units. With a pair of 185s the safe walking route only needs to be between the 3rd and 4th cars, it doesn’t need to be the full length of the train.

A bay platform at Middlesbrough would solve all of these issues, unless the long proposed daytime LNER services unexpectedly materialise.

 

[Watershed]

If a third platform at Middlesbrough was built I think terminating services there would be a real cost saving.

Other than a very small amount of track access charges, diesel and wear and tear, there would be no saving at all. You would have to totally recast the timetable for it to save any units or crew.

There is no recovery time when services go through to Redcar. It’s a rushed turnaround.

True, but since when has that sort of pragmatic thinking ever stopped the DfT! The services operated to Redcar for several years until December's Saltburn extension, so it wouldn't be anything new.

Hull definitely isn’t running through to Liverpool, at least not for the majority of the day, in the current timetable.

It may not be running through in practice, but we are talking about the notional timetable here.

Getting rid of Newcastle - Piccadilly only works if Newcastle - Liverpool moves back to the xx:43 path from Newcastle, as it would need to take over the Chester-le-Street calls.

In the traditional railway mindset, perhaps. But the DfT has, for example, instructed Northern to remove the DalesRail service - that will leave Clitheroe-Hellifield without any scheduled service. They honestly couldn't care less about a minor station being reduced to an unusable level of service; it won't stop them from taking a fleet off lease.

Manchester - Glasgow is already only 1tp2h. It’s unlikely to be scrapped as Transport Scotland would kick off at the resultant loss of the daytime Lockerbie - Glasgow link.

Sorry, I meant 1tp4h. Transport Scotland can kick off as much as they want, but unless they're willing to fund the cost of leasing 2 or 3 397s (and possibly even if they are), it won't stop the DfT.

 

[D365]

Could it be the 185s the DfT are looking at cutting, since they are quite expensive to run?

Expensive, in comparison to what?

 

[Philip]

As well as the Scarborough starting from York, I think the following idea could work well:

Reform South TPE into an hourly shuttle between Manchester and Sheffield, with one early morning through train from Doncaster to arrive into Manchester for 08:05ish and the evening return to Doncaster at 17:20. With the majority of the services between Manchester and Sheffield running as double sets, this should utilise 6 x 185s rather than the 14 or so at present. Hopefully this may improve reliability as well as maintaining capacity on the core section of the route. The spare 185s could then either go off lease; replace some mk5 sets; or allow more services on the North TPE route to run as double sets.

Northern could then provide a new hourly Sheffield-Cleethorpes service to run in the same path, and also reinstate the Man Airport-Liverpool via Warrington semi-fast; again running on the same path. Cut the Leeds-Chester back to Victoria to free up 195s for the Liverpool, and move 170s from the Harrogate line to run the new Sheff-Cleethorpes service; the EMR 156s can free up some 158s to run on the Harrogate line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

Expensive, in comparison to what?

The other TPE stock.