TPE 170's

[WillPS]

(Scotland won't lose trains because they are Scotland's trains. Because rolling stock allocation is a devloved issue, it's ludicrous to suggest that TS should have to make sacrifices because of DfT's incompetence.)

And what of the short term/subleased 158s which were due to return to England but never did?

 

[WatcherZero]

Do not forget the Secretary of State has already said that DfT have identified a solution to TPE's loss of the 170s which will likely see more electric stock introduced in the north to release more diesel units. The department is in commercial negotiations and hope to make an announcement in the summer.

Their original plan was to take units off Northern and give them to TPE, they were forced to go back to the blackboard when they were told Northern didnt have any units spare and those freed up by electrification were already committed to future schemes like Todmorden, Bolton strengthening and Bolton-Blackburn.

 

[SqUaShIe P]

Do not forget the Secretary of State has already said that DfT have identified a solution to TPE's loss of the 170s which will likely see more electric stock introduced in the north to release more diesel units. The department is in commercial negotiations and hope to make an announcement in the summer.

I think the DfTs 'Remapping' of franchises might be their solution. If Blackpool Nth to Manchester Airport, Windermere Branch, Barrow In Furness to Manchester Airport, York to Scarborough and Cleethorpes to Doncaster get transferred from TPE to Northern as proposed, That would cover the loss of the 9 Class 170s. Northern would be ok for stock once the 319s arrive, and they would not lose any of their stock, as per their current agreement.
I know there was some other proposed transfers too; One train per hour between Doncaster and Hull to be transferred from Northern to TPE. TPE could do that using the units the save by no longer serving Cleethorpes.
And Nottingham to Liverpool Lime St proposed to be transferred from EMT to TPE. I think if that one comes off, It would come with the rolling stock, so maybe some of EMTs 158s would go to TPE with the route..
More (new build) electric stock for the north would be nice though

 

[Manchester77]

The remapping would be part of the next franchise which doesn't solve the problem which begins in May 2015

 

[SpacePhoenix]

(Scotland won't lose trains because they are Scotland's trains. Because rolling stock allocation is a devloved issue, it's ludicrous to suggest that TS should have to make sacrifices because of DfT's incompetence.)

Ony the trains owned by the Scottish government can't be lost from Scotland. If the stock is owned by a leasing company then it's down to which TOCs they sign leasing contracts with as to if stock moves around

 

[Boothby97]

I know there was some other proposed transfers too; One train per hour between Doncaster and Hull to be transferred from Northern to TPE. TPE could do that using the units the save by no longer serving Cleethorpes.

I don't understand the concept of swapping Doncaster-Hull and Cleethorpes-Doncaster between TPE and Northern.
Ok, so a Cleethorpes-Doncaster shuttle would require 3 units (journey time CLE-DON of around 1h25), whereas the Hull-Doncaster semi-fast service would theoretically use 2 units (around 56m journey time HUL-DON), although the semi-fast service actually runs from the Yorkshire Coast to Sheffield.
Surely swapping the Hull and Cleethorpes services would result in the Scarborough/Bridlington loosing its direct service to Sheffield?
The other thing I don't understand with the potential swap, is that Hull already has a direct service to Manchester (and this service wouldn't be quicker).

 

[SqUaShIe P]

The remapping would be part of the next franchise which doesn't solve the problem which begins in May 2015

Well the word on the street here is that Chiltern's new service doesnt fully start until mid 2016, so from 2015 onwards, Most units will be subleased to TPE and the cascade of units will be phased. Its not great for customer but TPE will have to run units individually instead of in multiple to make up the shortfall.

I don't understand the concept of swapping Doncaster-Hull and Cleethorpes-Doncaster between TPE and Northern.
Ok, so a Cleethorpes-Doncaster shuttle would require 3 units (journey time CLE-DON of around 1h25), whereas the Hull-Doncaster semi-fast service would theoretically use 2 units (around 56m journey time HUL-DON), although the semi-fast service actually runs from the Yorkshire Coast to Sheffield.
Surely swapping the Hull and Cleethorpes services would result in the Scarborough/Bridlington loosing its direct service to Sheffield?
The other thing I don't understand with the potential swap, is that Hull already has a direct service to Manchester (and this service wouldn't be quicker).

Yeh, Im with you on not understanding the concept of it. Other than potentially saving one unit, It seems pretty pointless. As you said, the existing Hull to Manchester service is quicker. The only thing I could think of is if they are still only going to wire Manchester to Selby. They would probably run Manchester to Selby with electrics, and then Hull would maintain is direct service to Manchester using 185s via Doncaster and Sheffield. Has First Hull Trains secured the funding to wire then gap?
There is currently two trains an hour (i think) between Doncaster and Hull. Off the top of my head, the XX.19 continues to Bridlington/Scarborough and the XX.42 terminates at Hull. Not sure what time they leave Hull. I think TPE would just take over the the XX.42 service so Bridlington and Scarborough would retain their through services to Sheffield.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well the word on the street here is that Chiltern's new service doesnt fully start until mid 2016, so from 2015 onwards, Most units will be subleased to TPE and the cascade of units will be phased. Its not great for customer but TPE will have to run units individually instead of in multiple to make up the shortfall.

The difference between the interim Chiltern service and the full service is only slight, they are supposedly running their 2 tph Oxford services as far as Oxford (Water Eaton) Parkway, rather than over the last couple of miles into Oxford station itself.

It seems to me therefore, that any savings in rolling stock requirements will probably be negligible, especially if they use the planned paths between Marylebone and Oxford Parkway - i.e. the planned dwell time at Oxford will simply be increased by a few minutes and taken at Parkway.

Edited to add, the draft timetables show a running time of an hour between Marylebone and Oxford Parkway, and about an extra 7 minutes on to Oxford. As they wouldn't normally operate a timetable with no margin for delays, it seems to me they'd need about 3 hours for each return diagram to Oxford Parkway, and 3 1/2 hours for a return diagram into Oxford itself. Lets assume they are 2 unit trains, then I reckon they'll either need either 12 or 14 units on the route - so the shortened route saves 2 units only.

However, the Oxford services are in the main extensions/diversions of existing services that are already running - so most of the stock to be used already exists - but there is a parallel project to increase the length of trains on the Marylebone to Banbury route as well as introduce the Oxford services. All in all, I think it is just a convenience to describe the ex-TPE stock as being needed 'for Oxford'. It is also needed for general strengthening on the existing route - and it is this latter project that is probably the easier to defer.

 

[IanXC]

Yeh, Im with you on not understanding the concept of it. Other than potentially saving one unit, It seems pretty pointless. As you said, the existing Hull to Manchester service is quicker. The only thing I could think of is if they are still only going to wire Manchester to Selby. They would probably run Manchester to Selby with electrics, and then Hull would maintain is direct service to Manchester using 185s via Doncaster and Sheffield. Has First Hull Trains secured the funding to wire then gap?
There is currently two trains an hour (i think) between Doncaster and Hull. Off the top of my head, the XX.19 continues to Bridlington/Scarborough and the XX.42 terminates at Hull. Not sure what time they leave Hull. I think TPE would just take over the the XX.42 service so Bridlington and Scarborough would retain their through services to Sheffield.

My impression is that Rail North are of the opinion that all the major cities should have TPE services between them - hence how Hull 'deserves' a TPE service to Sheffield, but Cleethorpes doesn't. When combined with their/DfT's desire to have South TP express services in the same franchise (presumably pending electrification of that route) the logic seems to become clear - there is also the opportunity for the MAN-SHF-HUL diagrams to be interworked with HUL-LDS-MAN, potentially gaining some unit time. This all ends up being regardless of how useful the service would be for journeys from Hull to Manchester (taking NT to Selby and changing there will probably be the same journey time).

The last round of Local Growth Fund included the necessary finance for the Hull Trains electrification proposal to go ahead - so long as the GRIP3 study comes out with the expected BCR, and a mechanism can be agreed for the transfer of the infrastructure back to Network Rail then I think its pretty much certain to go ahead now.

I must say I'm not sure I share your optimism about the retention of through services from the Coast line to Sheffield. Theres no real mention of which of the 2 Doncaster-Hull services they're talking about in the consultation, but I think we have to presume its the express service. The real reason I don't share your optimism is that (as far as I can tell) the current franchise agreement does not require through services (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4136/nrthncommitment.pdf).

 

[Boothby97]

I think I'd rather they keep it as it is now, so that passengers on the Cleethorpes and Yorkshire Coast remain happy.
I still don't understand why Hull wasn't part of the electrification plans (yet Selby was covered).
I know a petition has been started by the residents of Grimsby/Cleethorpes to make DfT consider the retention of a through service to Manchester, I think most would be happy (me included) with a through service to Sheffield (with the same calling pattern to that of the existing service).

 

[IanXC]

I think I'd rather they keep it as it is now, so that passengers on the Cleethorpes and Yorkshire Coast remain happy.
I still don't understand why Hull wasn't part of the electrification plans (yet Selby was covered).

Indeed.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the optimum outcome will be for South TP to have 3tph - Nottingham, Cleethorpes and Hull. After all if the Electric Spine is such a good idea then the freight on the South Bank surely makes that a perfect electrification candidate too(!)

I think when considering why Hull wasn't included we have to remember that Selby wasn't an objective. North TP electrification was -Leeds-York, the ongoing lack of diversionary routes for electric East Coast services meant Network Rail were keen to go to Hambleton Junction - its then only a couple of miles to Selby. On the other hand the potential remapping of South TP suggests that electrification of Doncaster-Goole-Hull will be in the next Control Period.

 

[Class 170101]

Has anyone considered that the plan might be extra Mark III sets running on Chiltern between Marylebone and Birmingham there by releasing 168s to the Oxford services for an interim period until the 319s are fully released from Thasmeslink duties?

 

[Manchester77]

No, Chiltern are in a poor financial state as it is so unless the dfT is sponsoring the conversion of the sets it's highly unlikely Chiltern will be doing any more sets.

 

[WatcherZero]

Chiltern are also quite eager to reduce their reliance LHCS sets with a transition to DMU's as they see them as more reliable, its primarily why they went after the 170's in the first place. Grand Central are similarly eager to replace Mk3's with 180's.

 

[David Barrett]

My impression is that Rail North are of the opinion that all the major cities should have TPE services between them - hence how Hull 'deserves' a TPE service to Sheffield, but Cleethorpes doesn't. When combined with their/DfT's desire to have South TP express services in the same franchise (presumably pending electrification of that route) the logic seems to become clear - there is also the opportunity for the MAN-SHF-HUL diagrams to be interworked with HUL-LDS-MAN, potentially gaining some unit time. This all ends up being regardless of how useful the service would be for journeys from Hull to Manchester (taking NT to Selby and changing there will probably be the same journey time).

Reflecting these thoughts perhaps it may be of wider benifit for Rail North to leave the South Bank to become an all EMT operation reflecting the same type of economies which could be achieved with interworking at Hull, between services at Cleethorpes and enabling modest but much needed improvements there perhaps as a quid pro quo for the loss of through services to the North West. Certainly, should TP take over Nottingham to Liverpool and South TP is diverted to Hull, then a fair quantity of 158s would become available to work a Cleethorpes to Sheffield service and to enhance the Cleethorpes/Grimsby Town - Lincoln - Newark/Nottingham group. The 153s would still have a hand in the Cleethorpes/Newark route interworking with the Barton Branch all of which would serve to regularise the Lincoln - Grimsby/Cleethorpes service to the extent of there being a basic all day two hour frequency, with some augmentations, and all trains running to/from Cleethorpes. Given a similar timetable to that existing between Cleethorpes and Sheffield there would be no need for any other train crews than those of Cleethorpes to be involved, a fuel point would become available to EMT making the cycle of rolling stock to Eastcroft for attention much easier and ECS workings between Lincoln and Cleethorpes unnecessary. What springs to mind is a daily extension of a morning Lincoln to Leicester service to start from Cleethorpes: eg. the current 08.35 instead of or combining with a Sleaford portion and the 17.50 SX Nottingham to Lincoln but to run Saturdays also, along with the use of the early Barton unit which works the first round trip of the day to strengthen the 09.20 Grimsby - Newark NG (to start from Cleethorpes) 16.45 Newark NG - Grimsby (extended to Cleethorpes), both trains being noted for loading problems, as part of its own cycling around the system as necessary for operating and maintenance purposes. Dare I even suggest that EMT with Cleethorpes and Lincoln crews also assume responsibility for the Brigg line thereafter.

 

[t_star2001uk]

From what we were told during staff briefings earlier this year, the deal for the 170's has already been signed and then a sublease deal has been set up to lease back to TPE till next year.

No, Chiltern are in a poor financial state as it is

What is your source for this as we dont even know that and we get told about the financial performance of the company as a profit share is part of our contracts.

Class 170101, we were also told during the briefings that no more silver sets are planned and we will be working with the ones we have.

 

[Manchester77]

What is your source for this as we dont even know that and we get told about the financial performance of the company as a profit share is part of our contracts.

Tony Miles has stated several times when the issue has been brought up over on wnxx that Chiltern aren't in the best financial state to spend all the money doing up another few rakes. He and Rodger Ford had seen the numbers doing something related to the magazine.

 

[Class 170101]

Grand Central are similarly eager to replace Mk3's with 180's.

That will be fairly easy of course providing the wires extend from Selby to Hull.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Class 170101, we were also told during the briefings that no more silver sets are planned and we will be working with the ones we have.

Again I only raised it as a suggestion as the minister in his statement to Parliament earlier this month gave no hint as to what the solution he proposes to announce this summer currently under discussion might be.

And I agree with the view posted by Manchester77

so unless the dfT is sponsoring the conversion of the sets it's highly unlikely Chiltern will be doing any more sets.