Reversing the New Timetables

[scarby]

The sheer volume of data processing alone to roll back the timetable makes anything prior to December not even remotely viable.

Good job that wasn't the approach taken when the railways were used to bring soldiers home after Dunkirk.

What's happened to the British "can do" attitude?

 

[87015]

Good job that wasn't the approach taken when the railways were used to bring soldiers home after Dunkirk.

What's happened to the British "can do" attitude?

Privatisation.

 

[Bantamzen]

As with one or two others, I seriously doubt the timetables could or would simply be rolled back to the pre-May ones. Even handing back the stoppers to Northern won't solve all the problems, just shift the blame from TPE to Northern. What TPE need to look at is splitting the Leeds-Manchester stoppers at Huddersfield, as Northern did with most. This would at least remove these from the entire length, and reduce the impact they can have on the fasts and semi-fasts. However this would mean that there would be less timetabled through services, so it would have to go hand in hand with the rollouts of the new MKVs & 802s to allow these remaining through services to soak up the extra demand this move would undoubtedly put onto them. Maybe in the longer term the stoppers could be given back to Northern, but until cascades elsewhere allow for a lot more DMU stock being available, giving it back now would mean cancelling & shortforming elsewhere.

 

[ainsworth74]

Good job that wasn't the approach taken when the railways were used to bring soldiers home after Dunkirk.

What's happened to the British "can do" attitude?

We're not fighting World War?

 

[scarby]

We're not fighting World War?

Thankfully no. But passengers are suffering huge inconvenience on a daily basis. Just saying "We'll have to wait until December" doesn't wash - the timetable doesn't work.

Emergency timetables are introduced in times of bad weather, so I can't believe it is beyond human capacity to implement a revised service where at least the trains that do run generally run on time.

 

[underbank]

What's happened to the British "can do" attitude?

Its the "not my job guv" or "health and safety innit" culture - too many workers looking for reasons not to do something rather than thinking of ways to do it.

 

[47802]

Well they are clearly not going to go back to the old timetable, but they are clearly going to have to look at the issues of the new timetable and make some changes, which is going to include the issue of turnaround time, maybe they would have to look at reducing the Airport service via the curve to hourly, possibly compensated by running the other service the old way. The Leeds - Manchester Picc which is virtually an all stations stopper , maybe that needs to go and look at splitting it back to a separate Leeds-Huddersfield, and Huddersfield-Manchester if it still needs to miss the odd station out because that's the only way it can fit into the timetable then so be it, that would still have to be covered by one of the faster TPE services.

 

[Eric]

You said a service booked to call at Slaithwaite and Dewsbury missed out those stations but still called at Huddersfield. Yet there appears to be no services which actually did that. When I questioned this you claimed I was looking at the wrong trains. Perhaps you can confirm the exact service you were referring to? I've asked you already but you dodged the question.

From your previous posts in other threads it's obvious you don't like the new North TPE timetable.

I'm not defending TPE, I'm questioning your account. The fact that one of your claims seems to have been made up casts doubt over whether anything you've posted in this thread actually happened.

The TPE train we were all on was supposed to call at Morley, Batley, Dewsbury etc.... all the way to Manchester.

When the guard finally turned up, we were told that wasn’t the case and the train was now running fast to Manchester Piccadilly, only stopping at Huddersfield.

It wasn’t calling at Morley, Batley Dewsbury, Slaithwaite or any of the other stations, hence my parties frustration at having to get off a train the driver said was calling at these stations.

He said control had changed the calling pattern to make up lost time.

I’m not train savy to use the sites that can tell you which train stops where but I’m telling you we were told at Leeds the train was only calling at Huddersfield and we had to get off.

By this point the train was late and it was only half an hour to the next one, but the conductor said there was no guarantee that one would be on time due to problems getting TPE services up from Manchester.

Our party went to platform 16 and caught a TPE to Manchester Airport which stopped at Dewsbury.

Whist on the train we were introduced by the TPE manager who was onboard, stood up by the first set of doors.

It was busy and standing only.

If you don’t want to believe me then that’s your prerogative but the above happened.

 

[tbtc]

Like a lot of ideas on here, it all sounds nice until you try to unpick the details.



First of all, would going back to the old timetables mean no TPE services over the Ordsall Chord? All that money spent on connecting Piccadilly with Victoria and we decide to abandon it? Can you imagine the reaction?



Secondly, do you go back to the exact service pattern that the Huddersfield line used to have? With a lop-sided fifth TPE service? Or, if we are simplifying the timetable, do we go back to a simpler four/hour? Newcastle loses half its TPE services – does it lose the Manchester Airport or Liverpool service? Either will inconvenience people.



Assuming that there’s a half hourly Liverpool service via Chat Moss (as you’re not going to be able to path one over the Piccadilly throat), are you planning on having a half hourly Airport service reversing at Piccadilly or using the Ordsall Chord? One would mean splitting the services between two stations at Manchester, one would mean giving up on the Chord.



Or, if the plan is to produce a resilient timetable with sufficient layover time (which may mean having a spare DMU at Scarborough etc, a layover of over sixty minutes) then why not give up on the Airport leg? The average passenger loading is only just over thirty per service at the Airport, there’ll still be seven other services per hour from Piccadilly to the Airport. If the idea is to provide reliable services on the TPE core then you surely have to consider abandoning the extremities, temporarily?



Another problem (on a line where disability concerns have seen the Pretendolino plan abandoned) is that you’d be replacing modern 185s (with accessible toilets and other facilities) with 1980s 150s (or even potentially Pacers) at local stations between Leeds and Manchester – if the plan is to bring back the old Northern stopping services. Can you see that going down well with passengers who are just getting used to being able to use the trains at their local stations?



Then there’s the issue of whether Northern do have spare DMUs (and spare staff) to run the stoppers? I don’t know what the stock/ crew were cascaded to but it doesn’t look like they have lots of spare resources to tackle TPE’s problems with – they can’t solve their own problems at the moment.



Plus some stations will lose their direct train to a big city (e.g. Marsden to Leeds, Batley to Manchester), which could attract more negativity.



I think it’d be better to address the specific clashes and conflicts – e.g. one early morning service from Scarborough to the Airport seems to run okay until it reaches the Chord, but then lose a lot of time heading east towards Piccadilly (and is often terminated there). As this isn’t happening to every service over the Chord, presumably there’s something specific affecting this service – should it be terminated at Victoria instead?



Scarborough-bound services seem to lose time heading to the coast. Would it be better to terminate half of the Liverpool – Scarborough services at York, with an equivalent bi-hourly shuttle from the terminating platforms at York towards Scarborough, to avoid some clashes over the flat ECML and ensure that Scarborough gets some guaranteed services? Maybe do the same with some Middlesbrough services too? But try some small adjustments rather than the baby/bathwater approach that some on here seem to like.

I know that nostalgia is always flavour of the month on here, but I didn't expect nostalgia for just a few weeks ago!

 

[The Planner]

Its the "not my job guv" or "health and safety innit" culture - too many workers looking for reasons not to do something rather than thinking of ways to do it.

Or maybe not enough people and not enough time.

 

[Eric]

Like a lot of ideas on here, it all sounds nice until you try to unpick the details.



First of all, would going back to the old timetables mean no TPE services over the Ordsall Chord? All that money spent on connecting Piccadilly with Victoria and we decide to abandon it? Can you imagine the reaction?



Secondly, do you go back to the exact service pattern that the Huddersfield line used to have? With a lop-sided fifth TPE service? Or, if we are simplifying the timetable, do we go back to a simpler four/hour? Newcastle loses half its TPE services – does it lose the Manchester Airport or Liverpool service? Either will inconvenience people.



Assuming that there’s a half hourly Liverpool service via Chat Moss (as you’re not going to be able to path one over the Piccadilly throat), are you planning on having a half hourly Airport service reversing at Piccadilly or using the Ordsall Chord? One would mean splitting the services between two stations at Manchester, one would mean giving up on the Chord.



Or, if the plan is to produce a resilient timetable with sufficient layover time (which may mean having a spare DMU at Scarborough etc, a layover of over sixty minutes) then why not give up on the Airport leg? The average passenger loading is only just over thirty per service at the Airport, there’ll still be seven other services per hour from Piccadilly to the Airport. If the idea is to provide reliable services on the TPE core then you surely have to consider abandoning the extremities, temporarily?



Another problem (on a line where disability concerns have seen the Pretendolino plan abandoned) is that you’d be replacing modern 185s (with accessible toilets and other facilities) with 1980s 150s (or even potentially Pacers) at local stations between Leeds and Manchester – if the plan is to bring back the old Northern stopping services. Can you see that going down well with passengers who are just getting used to being able to use the trains at their local stations?



Then there’s the issue of whether Northern do have spare DMUs (and spare staff) to run the stoppers? I don’t know what the stock/ crew were cascaded to but it doesn’t look like they have lots of spare resources to tackle TPE’s problems with – they can’t solve their own problems at the moment.



Plus some stations will lose their direct train to a big city (e.g. Marsden to Leeds, Batley to Manchester), which could attract more negativity.



I think it’d be better to address the specific clashes and conflicts – e.g. one early morning service from Scarborough to the Airport seems to run okay until it reaches the Chord, but then lose a lot of time heading east towards Piccadilly (and is often terminated there). As this isn’t happening to every service over the Chord, presumably there’s something specific affecting this service – should it be terminated at Victoria instead?



Scarborough-bound services seem to lose time heading to the coast. Would it be better to terminate half of the Liverpool – Scarborough services at York, with an equivalent bi-hourly shuttle from the terminating platforms at York towards Scarborough, to avoid some clashes over the flat ECML and ensure that Scarborough gets some guaranteed services? Maybe do the same with some Middlesbrough services too? But try some small adjustments rather than the baby/bathwater approach that some on here seem to like.

I know that nostalgia is always flavour of the month on here, but I didn't expect nostalgia for just a few weeks ago!

I like the idea of running a TPE York - Scarborough shuttle. That would be better than cancelling at Malton and turning back.

 

[northwichcat]

But the train did miss out Slaithwaite along with Dewsbury and all the other stops when it was scheduled to stop.

It only stopped at Huddersfield, much to the frustration of the passengers wanting those stops that control had told it to pass through.

I never said I was on a Hull service. The train leaving Leeds was waiting for the guard of the Hull service to arrive and because it was late once the conductor arrived they said it was missing out all the intermediate stops.

I left that train and caught the Manchester Airport train which was about 6 minutes late leaving Leeds.

The TPE train we were all on was supposed to call at Morley, Batley, Dewsbury etc.... all the way to Manchester.

When the guard finally turned up, we were told that wasn’t the case and the train was now running fast to Manchester Piccadilly, only stopping at Huddersfield.

It wasn’t calling at Morley, Batley Dewsbury, Slaithwaite or any of the other stations, hence my parties frustration at having to get off a train the driver said was calling at these stations.

He said control had changed the calling pattern to make up lost time.

...

If you don’t want to believe me then that’s your prerogative but the above happened.

Why are you so reluctant to say the exact service you were on? If you simply stated that it would make things much clearer.

Doing further digging I've found a Leeds to Piccadilly service which missed out some stations between Leeds and Huddersfield to make up time. Is this the service you are on: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72402/2018/07/01/advanced ? It's the only service booked to call at Batley which instead went through Batley on Sunday. However, it wasn't booked to called at Slaithwaite, so if that is the service you are talking about you posted incorrect information in your earlier post.

If it is that service and the guard off the slightly earlier train to Hull is supposed to transfer to that service it explains why it departed late as the guard got to Leeds 6 minutes late: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72393/2018/07/01/advanced but that doesn't explain why there was a manager acting as a guard and the service departed 25 minutes late.

 

[Steve Harris]

What's happened to the British "can do" attitude?

That's the attitude that probably got GTR into their timetable mess !

 

[Eric]

Why are you so reluctant to say the exact service you were on? If you simply stated that it would make things much clearer.

Doing further digging I've found a Leeds to Piccadilly service which missed out some stations between Leeds and Huddersfield to make up time. Is this the service you are on: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72402/2018/07/01/advanced ? It's the only service booked to call at Batley which instead went through Batley on Sunday. However, it wasn't booked to called at Slaithwaite, so if that is the service you are talking about you posted incorrect information in your earlier post.

If it is that service and the guard off the slightly earlier train to Hull is supposed to transfer to that service it explains why it departed late as the guard got to Leeds 6 minutes late: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72393/2018/07/01/advanced but that doesn't explain why there was a manager acting as a guard and the service departed 25 minutes late.

I'm not reluctant to tell you, I just can't remember the exact service. It was around 1.00pm so that could be the train service.

As I've already said we were waiting on the platform to board the train when the member of staff on the platform said the services were being disrupted and the guard was stuck on a Hull service.

When they finally let us on they said it was still calling at Morley Batley Dewsbury etc...

But when the guard arrived they said it was only calling at Huddersfield and Manchester which was no use to me.

The TPE manager was on the Manchester Airport train, not this one. He obviously heard our frustration at being messed about and offered his opinion of the new timetables which I guess he's entitled to do because they must have been 60/70 people trying to squeeze onto an already packed Airport train.

 

[BeHereNow]

the decision to replace the stoppers with semi-fasts was Network Rail's idea and was enforced on franchise bidders

This is not correct. The ITT did not specify how those stations were to be served: https://assets.publishing.service.g...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf

However, the consultation response noted that skip stopping may be required: https://assets.publishing.service.g...iefing-document-and-consultation-response.pdf

"We are also clear there is a need to improve upon today’s service pattern to improve punctuality and reliability performance as soon as possible before the electrification infrastructure can be delivered. We cannot be confident that the route can accommodate more trains than it does today without risking a significant further drop in performance.

We are therefore requiring bidders to assume that from December 2017, some Northern services will no longer be required to run and calls to the affected stations will be picked up by TPE trains instead, with TPE running six trains per hour.

TPE bidders will have some flexibility over how to distribute between their six trains the calls at stations that were previously served by Northern trains, which is different to the proposal that was outlined and is intended to be an interim measure until the required infrastructure is delivered.

We expect that some locations will see an improvement in direct services to Manchester and Leeds, and that some locations will see improved service frequencies into the evenings. However, whilst we have aimed to preserve connectivity between key locations, including services to Huddersfield and Dewsbury, it is possible that there may be some loss of connectivity between smaller intermediate stations.

TPE bidders will be required to consult local stakeholders to understand and address any concerns they may have. Northern will continue to operate some peak additional services, and will remain responsible for the same stations in the area as they do currently. "

 

[northwichcat]

This is not correct. See here for more details: https://assets.publishing.service.g...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf

Which bit of that 193 page document are you referring to? Page 76 states

Instructions to Northern Bidders

The maximum frequency of service Bidders may plan to operate on this route is:
• 1tph Leeds-Brighouse (for the Calder Valley and Manchester Victoria), calling at Cottingley, Morley, Dewsbury and Mirfield;
• 1tph Huddersfield-Brighouse-Halifax-Leeds, making no calls between Huddersfield and Brighouse;
• 1tph Huddersfield-Wakefield Kirkgate, calling at Deighton and Mirfield;
• 1tph Huddersfield-Manchester Piccadilly in the Peaks only, each calling at two intermediate stations and Stalybridge, in accordance with the specification set out in the Northern TSR.

So Northern bidders were not permitted to run a Huddersfield-Leeds all-stops or Huddersfield-Manchester services except for a limited number of peak time extras.

 

[BeHereNow]

Sorry, I've edited it now. Not specified in the first document, that's why you can't find it.

The second document, that I have quoted, makes it clearer.

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry, I've edited it now. Not specified in the first document, that's why you can't find it.

The second document, that I have quoted, makes it clearer.

Network Rail had already effectively said it'll need to be 2 semi-fasts to replace the stopper between Manchester and Huddersfield. They also consulted on calling patterns and decided that one train calling at Greenfield and Marsden and the other calling at Mossley and Slaithwaite was the best approach. However, the same level of work hadn't been done for the Leeds-Huddersfield stoppers, which originally had been expected to remain, so it needed bidders to work with Network Rail and local stakeholders (like Metro) to decide on a suitable calling pattern.

 

[Eric]

Network Rail had already effectively said it'll need to be 2 semi-fasts to replace the stopper between Manchester and Huddersfield. They also consulted on calling patterns and decided that one train calling at Greenfield and Marsden and the other calling at Mossley and Slaithwaite was the best approach. However, the same level of work hadn't been done for the Leeds-Huddersfield stoppers, which originally had been expected to remain, so it needed bidders to work with Network Rail and local stakeholders (like Metro) to decide on a suitable calling pattern.

Is that why they ran my train on Sunday past all the stations it was supposed to stop at up to Huddersfield?

 

[Loop & Link]

No, it skipped stations due to late running to ensure as close to a right time departure for its next work and avoid further congestion.

Where were you actually travelling to, out of interest? As there was a service that ran non-stop Leeds-Huddersfield missing calls at Dewsbury/Morley/Batley etc. However it was never booked to call at Slaithwaite or Mossley in the first place.

 

[Eric]

No, it skipped stations due to late running to ensure as close to a right time departure for its next work and avoid further congestion.
o
Where were you actually travelling to, out of interest? As there was a service that ran non-stop Leeds-Huddersfield missing calls at Dewsbury/Morley/Batley etc. However it was never booked to call at Slaithwaite or Mossley in the first place.

Family emergency in Eastborough, which is between Batley and Dewsbury.