Speculation- New TPE routes or extensions?

[lrbvoyager]

I think this is already mentioned above, but I'd certainly agree, and would say 807s would be the ideal rolling stock for a bit of a capacity boost as they are often "sold out" and with plenty of standees.

I would have thought 897s would make more sense as they are tri mode allowing for diversionary routes whilst being longer. In addition it would mean staff don’t need to learn entirely new stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have thought 897s would make more sense as they are tri mode allowing for diversionary routes whilst being longer. In addition it would mean staff don’t need to learn entirely new stock.

TPE WCML drivers already sign Hitachis; some WCML services are operated using them for higher capacity than the 397s and possibly another reason I forget.

But yes they really should go back to ICWC. They were only put with TPE in the first place because they had enough rolling stock to operate them on the enhanced frequency (though it did stretch the 185 fleet very thinly) whereas ICWC didn't.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I doubt it'd ever happen, but is Wigan credible for splitting & joining? Manchester trains could even still serve Bolton now.

It really matters how long the trains are, platform 1 (the only through platform that can go to Bolton) isn't as long as the other through platforms.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Surely a much more efficient solution is to make the XC services longer (i.e. with a new fleet), not to add more services.

No, the best solution is to increase the frequency as well as increasing capacity on XC.

Leeds-Edinburgh is a very busy flow and can easily justify 2tph.

But yes they really should go back to ICWC. They were only put with TPE in the first place because they had enough rolling stock to operate them on the enhanced frequency (though it did stretch the 185 fleet very thinly) whereas ICWC didn't.

The Manchester-Scotland service was never part of ICWC. It was XC and operated with Voyagers.

When it was moved to TPE, TPE also operated the ex-FNW express services from Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere to Manchester. It made perfect sense to put all these routes together. Since then these other routes were moved back to Northern, which is partly why the TPEs are now so busy. The quality of service on TPE is so far in excess of what Northern provide that many people travelling from Manchester to/from Preston and Lancaster will actively choose the TPE service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Manchester-Scotland service was never part of ICWC. It was XC and operated with Voyagers.

This has been discussed before and it apparently was the case that in a very short period between XC being separated from Virgin Trains and it being taken over by TPE it was in fact operated by Virgin West Coast using their Voyagers. It was only a short period, though, I forget how long but possibly less than a year. I forget what service actually operated and there seems to be very little record of that period.

It was XC before that, yes, though in practice Virgin Trains appeared to be one operation to the user, particularly in pre-Voyager days.

The quality of service on TPE is so far in excess of what Northern provide that many people travelling from Manchester to/from Preston and Lancaster will actively choose the TPE service.

People probably do see prestige in the intercity style service, but I fail to see what's vastly better about the TPE service apart from window alignment - both services give you a hard seat in an overcrowded metal tube - yes, you can get a cup of tea on TPE, but most people buy that in advance now. My observation is that people prefer it because it's fast, and don't have an overriding preference between it and the Northern ex-Cumbria service which is also fast (and likely cheaper on Advances too). The two Northern Blackpool services are both stoppers so are slower which is why those aren't preferred.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This has been discussed before and it apparently was the case that in a very short period between XC being separated from Virgin Trains and it being taken over by TPE it was in fact operated by Virgin West Coast using their Voyagers.

If it was it was very short, the GBTT refers to the trains moving straight from VTXC to TPE in December 07. TPE had already been running the expresses to Cumbria.

My observation is that people prefer it because it's fast, and don't have an overriding preference between it and the Northern ex-Cumbria service which is also fast (and likely cheaper on Advances too).

Speed, on-board service, and the ability to reserve a seat seem to be the key influences in my experience.

 

[lrbvoyager]

I would prefer it if the current TPE services transfer to Avanti and they order 7 or 9 coach trains which include a shop as the trolley service seems to just cause issues especially when it’s busy. I think it would make sense if they ordered 897s as they aren’t as in high demand as 80x stock so the wait for them to be built shouldn’t be as long however if it’s transferred to Avanti then it would complicate there fleet as they already have 805/7s.

 

[stevieinselby]

No, the best solution is to increase the frequency as well as increasing capacity on XC.

Leeds-Edinburgh is a very busy flow and can easily justify 2tph.

The only issue with that is that while XC in general definitely justifies 2tph from the north-east to the midlands, the 20 minute penalty for running via Leeds means there is a very strong case for the second hourly service to run via Doncaster in order to reduce journey times for passengers travelling to/from Sheffield and points south, but that doesn't gel well with increasing the XC frequency via Leeds.

 

[YorksLad12]

Leeds-Edinburgh is a very busy flow and can easily justify 2tph.

The only issue with that is that while XC in general definitely justifies 2tph from the north-east to the midlands, the 20 minute penalty for running via Leeds means there is a very strong case for the second hourly service to run via Doncaster in order to reduce journey times for passengers travelling to/from Sheffield and points south, but that doesn't gel well with increasing the XC frequency via Leeds.

I remember that XC wanted the additional path through Leeds that went to TPE back in the day (when they went up to five services Leeds-Manchester), but I have long felt that it should be an LNER/east coast service that got it, with the Leeds-Edinburgh route being all on the ECML apart from Leeds to York (and even then you could make the case that it is).

I agree with the comments that we should get TPE and XC working properly before looking at where else they could run to/from - I bet we all have our own lists...

 

[lrbvoyager]

I remember that XC wanted the additional path through Leeds that went to TPE back in the day (when they went up to five services Leeds-Manchester), but I have long felt that it should be an LNER/east coast service that got it, with the Leeds-Edinburgh route being all on the ECML apart from Leeds to York (and even then you could make the case that it is).

I agree with the comments that we should get TPE and XC working properly before looking at where else they could run to/from - I bet we all have our own lists...

What would your list be?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with the comments that we should get TPE and XC working properly before looking at where else they could run to/from - I bet we all have our own lists...

XC is clearly broken, but TPE doesn't seem broken to me these days (it was for years though). Indeed the fix for XC seems to me quite clearly to be what the fix for TPE proved to be - new rolling stock to near double the capacity.

 

[Zomboid]

XC is indeed an easy fix at this stage - just give it big enough trains.

For TPE I would say that although we shouldn't be getting hung up on the name, in terms of service grouping, anything long distance runs on the WCML and doesn't get east of Manchester really should be part of the ICWC operation, and similarly on the ECML, if it runs significant distances on the ECML and doesn't go west of Leeds then it's an ICEC service group.

 

[dodecahedron67]

TPE WCML drivers already sign Hitachis; some WCML services are operated using them for higher capacity than the 397s and possibly another reason I forget.

Because the 397s are constantly falling apart...

 

[Tetchytyke]

The only issue with that is that while XC in general definitely justifies 2tph from the north-east to the midlands, the 20 minute penalty for running via Leeds means there is a very strong case for the second hourly service to run via Doncaster in order to reduce journey times for passengers travelling to/from Sheffield and points south

Yeah, when I lived in Newcastle my preference was always to catch the XC trains via Doncaster because they were so much quicker.

In an ideal world I’d go to how it was on XC with 1tph via Leeds and 1tph via Doncaster.

I agree with the comments that we should get TPE and XC working properly before looking at where else they could run to/from

TPE is largely working properly now, much as it wasn’t for a good while.

TPE are already running Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle and Newcastle-Edinburgh. All we’d need to do is go back to the original plan and join the two services together.

XC is an easy fix. More trains and the budget to staff them properly.

 

[Brubulus]

I know planners and the forum alike hate it, but there might need to be a renewed look at splits and joins, especially regarding connecting Liverpool and Scotland.

Because the 397s are constantly falling apart...

Didn't they win a golden spanner at one point or am I hallucinating?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know planners and the forum alike hate it, but there might need to be a renewed look at splits and joins, especially regarding connecting Liverpool and Scotland.

Demand from Manchester to Scotland is high enough that I don't think this is a priority over more capacity from Manchester. People from Liverpool can change at Warrington, Wigan or Preston as they prefer. It's a much smaller market, which is why it hasn't had a frequent service over the past years since the route through Ormskirk ceased to be a through route, and even when it was one it was an infrequent service.

A couple of round trips a day direct is the most that is justified in that context.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I know planners and the forum alike hate it, but there might need to be a renewed look at splits and joins, especially regarding connecting Liverpool and Scotland.

Demand from Manchester to Scotland is high enough that I don't think this is a priority over more capacity from Manchester. People from Liverpool can change at Warrington, Wigan or Preston as they prefer. It's a much smaller market, which is why it hasn't had a frequent service over the past years since the route through Ormskirk ceased to be a through route, and even when it was one it was an infrequent service.

A couple of round trips a day direct is the most that is justified in that context.

What about:
8 car Manchester-Preston
4 car Liverpool-Preston

12 car Preston-Scotland

That'd boost capacity for both (if hourly)

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about:
8 car Manchester-Preston
4 car Liverpool-Preston

12 car Preston-Scotland

That'd boost capacity for both (if hourly)

Sounds like an attempt to find a home for the 350/2s (with a suitable tarting up)

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Sounds like an attempt to find a home for the 350/2s (with a suitable tarting up)

Was it that obvious? (it wasn't intended to be them, but it was in my mind while writing it thanks to the discussions).

350s would be the only thing to work short term if we wanted that arrangement (although I doubt anything would actually happen).
Offering the higher length to Manchester and the lesser (but more frequent) to Liverpool seems like it'd work.

From @jhy44 in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-350-4-transpennine-express.192067/

Standard Class = 180 normal seats, 13 tip-up seats (in wheelchair & bicycle areas) = 193 total
First Class = 19 seats
Total Seated Capacity = 212 seats

vs a 397 (as per TPE seat map)

288 seats – 264 standard (+8 tip-up in bike space), 24 First Class

4 car 350 (refitted to 350/4 spec) would have 3 less 1st Class seats, 84 less standard seats, and 5 more tip-up seats
8 car 350 (refitted) would have 16 more 1st class, 96 more standard, and 18 more tip-up seats
12 car 350 (refitted) would have 35 more 1st class, 276 more standard, and 18 more tip-up seats

Who knows how many seats a new design would be.


Dishounrable mention to the "AI" Overview, which said there were only 76 seats on a 350/4 (8 of which First Class), as well as an entirely First Class carriage and a composite carriage.
Its listed source was Wikipedia so I have no clue where that came from.

 

[lrbvoyager]

Because the 397s are constantly falling apart...

Are they?

 

[IanXC]

On that basis, you could say the same about any of the services through West Yorkshire. Any one of the other Calder Valley via Bradford services could fulfill that role just as well, but for some reason it is always the Blackpool that gets mooted.
To be honest it's York that's the problem anyway. I wouldn't advocate completely axing the through Trans-Pennine service to Scarborough, but the York to Scarborough section is noticeably more reliable when it runs as a simple shuttle. If ever the proposed second hourly service on the route materialises I'd definitely advocate that service operating as a shuttle from the bay platform at York.

I would suggest that the optimum service for the Scarborough branch is:

1tph Scarborough - York platform 2
1tph Scarborough - Leeds and beyond

One service gives connectivity and the other reliability.

I thought that supposed issue with 170s had been, if not outright debunked, at least quashed somewhat by people "in the know"?
In any case even if they're damagingly inefficient at lower speeds, they're no worse than running 185s on routes they aren't suitable for due to their weight.

The issues of 170s on the Harrogate line are two-fold. Reliability has been significantly improved by Northern gaining knowledge of the units, but also by cycling them through Sheffield - Scarborough; fuel economy is as bad as ever on the Harrogate line.

Coming back to the original thread title, and remembering we are in the Speculative discussion sub forum, I would suggest that the 3rd Hope Valley express should be a TPE service from Manchester Piccadilly to Lincoln service calling at New Mills Central and Dore. The resulting services would be:

1tph Manchester Picccadilly - Lincoln (New Mills Central, Dore, Sheffield, Worksop, Retford, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, Lincoln)
1tph Sheffield - Gainsborough Central (reinstate the pre covid service)
2tph Leeds - Nottingham (the current Northern Leeds - Lincoln becomes a second Nottingham per hour)

This reinstates 2tph on the Lincoln route, gives Lincoln a service to Manchester, doubles one of Northern's busiest routes (Leeds-Nottingham) and at the loss of Leeds - Lincoln, which lets face it, is much quicker via Doncaster, so really the loss is Barnsley and Meadowhall to stations on the Lincoln line, which yes is a loss, but I would argue is significantly outweighed by the gain on the other routes.

 

[321362]

the 3rd Hope Valley express should be a TPE service from Manchester Piccadilly to Lincoln service calling at New Mills Central and Dore. The resulting services would be:

1tph Manchester Picccadilly - Lincoln (New Mills Central, Dore, Sheffield, Worksop, Retford, Gainsborough Lea Road, Saxilby, Lincoln)
1tph Sheffield - Gainsborough Central (reinstate the pre covid service)
2tph Leeds - Nottingham (the current Northern Leeds - Lincoln becomes a second Nottingham per hour)

This reinstates 2tph on the Lincoln route, gives Lincoln a service to Manchester, doubles one of Northern's busiest routes (Leeds-Nottingham) and at the loss of Leeds - Lincoln, which lets face it, is much quicker via Doncaster, so really the loss is Barnsley and Meadowhall to stations on the Lincoln line, which yes is a loss, but I would argue is significantly outweighed by the gain on the other routes.

Absolutely

 

[Class83]

I personally believe that the 3 return services between Glasgow and Liverpool via Carlisle should be increased to 4 or 5 a day as the trains are always packed. It would be nice to have Edinburgh to Liverpool via Carlisle aswell as I would of thought there would be a big enough demand for it but as previously said by someone else that doesn’t mean there can’t be another service via Leeds. However it would make more sense for Liverpool/Manchester Airport to Edinburgh/Glasgow to be transferred to Avanti as they don’t cross the Pennines and I believe the Avanti soft product is better. Instead I would have TPE operate Carlisle-Newcastle services over the Tyne valley as it actually crosses the pennine which could be extended to Morpeth or York.

Manchester has an equal number of services to Edinburgh and Glasgow, a direct service using the fastest route (WCML) from Liverpool to Edinburgh would seem a higher priority than more Glasgow services, not sure if it will every quite get to alternating hourly as Manchester.

Extending the Newcastle service to Edinburgh isn't bad in itself, but it's not a service many would use all the way from Liverpool or Manchester, it's serving the NW-Newcastle market and the West Yorkshire to Edinburgh markets which overlap between Leeds and Newcastle.

The only issue with that is that while XC in general definitely justifies 2tph from the north-east to the midlands, the 20 minute penalty for running via Leeds means there is a very strong case for the second hourly service to run via Doncaster in order to reduce journey times for passengers travelling to/from Sheffield and points south, but that doesn't gel well with increasing the XC frequency via Leeds.

A second hourly XC via Doncaster to Edinburgh would be very useful for Sheffield and Midlands journeys as the route is much faster than via Leeds. However, track capacity for 2*LNER, 2*XC, 1*TPE, occasional LUMO plus the local stoppers at either end between Newcastle and Edinburgh might be getting to the limits of what can be timetabled, or they'll end up flighted to allow an express followed by stopping services.

 

[dodecahedron67]

Are they?

They are literally held together with gorilla tape in the cabs because of water ingress issues, so yes...

 

[Manclad83]

How about a Nottingham-Sheffield-Barnsley-Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service ?

 

[lrbvoyager]

How about a Nottingham-Sheffield-Barnsley-Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service ?

I feel like that would get utilitiesed a lot, however would it be able to get pathing?

 

[stevieinselby]

How about a Nottingham-Sheffield-Barnsley-Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service ?

See the discussion starting on post #64 further up this thread.

 

[lrbvoyager]

How about a Nottingham-Sheffield-Barnsley-Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service ?

What stock would you propose they use?

 

[A S Leib]

Instead I would have TPE operate Carlisle-Newcastle services over the Tyne valley as it actually crosses the pennine which could be extended to Morpeth or York.

I can't see that happening given fewer cross-Newcastle services running from December.

Even if TPE ran 397s or 802s on that route, would there be any noticeable time savings (on Haltwhistle – Hexham – Prudhoe – MetroCentre fasts; I'd guess too frequent stops to be worth using on Hexham stoppers)? I think LNER diversions are more or less the same duration as the faster Northern services, whilst having to fit within the Northern timetable.

 

[Zomboid]

Timekeeping with 397s would be pretty poor on that route.