TPE additional stock order - speculation

[mike57]

What is the current usage of platforms 11 and 12? Would a use of either those platforms for an airport shuttle service cause a problem for existing services?

A quick scan of a one hour period shows one service using 11 and nothing using 12. So underused. 10 doesnt look to be at capacity either. 13/14 and the low numbered platforms seem to be busiest

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A quick scan of a one hour period shows one service using 11 and nothing using 12. So underused. 10 doesnt look to be at capacity either. 13/14 and the low numbered platforms seem to be busiest

The problem with platforms 13 and 14, being through platforms, is that any service terminating there would cause too much disruption to through services.

 

[mike57]

The problem with platforms 13 and 14, being through platforms, is that any service terminating there would cause too much disruption to through services.

Yes and thats the issue with everything coming through Castlefield. Thinking back to about 2014 when the airport stopper pretty well ran as a self contained service it usually used 11 or 12. And of course we had better not mention the white elephant O****l C***d. I am suprised no one has suggested some west facing bays in the triangle between 13 and 12, it could be built over the taxi pick up area, not sure how long they could be, but maybe better than nothing. It doesn't look like the whole 13/14 Castlefield issue is going to be addressed anytime soon however so even if its possible it will not happen. My view is that any suggestion for improving the whole Airport - Manchester - Leeds and beyond service is going to have to rely on what can be done with existing infrastructure. We might get new rolling stock. And at the risk of heresy I think the Dewsbury - Huddersfield upgrades on their own are just going to shift the problems elsewhere. Personally if I had been spending that sort of money I would have sorted out the Manchester area first as it would have delivered more benefit to more people, and thats coming from someone who lives east of the Pennines

As I said earlier up the thread, since 2014 my regular journeys now take (significantly in a few cases) longer, and are less reliable, and thats a very poor advert for the DfT, TPE etc. What is worse getting back to the original thread is that we seem to be in a groundhog day situation, yet another fleet, not compatible with anything else, only just big enough, with all the training and operational issues that it entails being thrust on to an understaffed workforce. Covid rescued TPE in my opinion, without it I think we would have been looking at at yet another TOC taken over by OLR.

 

[Halish Railway]

As I said earlier up the thread, since 2014 my regular journeys now take (significantly in a few cases) longer, and are less reliable, and thats a very poor advert for the DfT, TPE etc. What is worse getting back to the original thread is that we seem to be in a groundhog day situation, yet another fleet, not compatible with anything else, only just big enough, with all the training and operational issues that it entails being thrust on to an understaffed workforce. Covid rescued TPE in my opinion, without it I think we would have been looking at at yet another TOC taken over by OLR.

I think things started to settle down in February and March 2020; Most of the 802s were in service every day, more 6 carriage trains were appearing, the Liverpool to Edinburgh service started to run reliably and crew shortages were going away as less crew were training instead of working in TPE’s plan to get as many 802s into service to get some slack in the 185 fleet. From May 2020 they were planning to extend the Manchester Piccadilly to Huddersfield stopper to Wakefield Kirkgate to facilitate 6 carriage workings and increase the number of 68/MK5 diagrams to 6.

Whats worth remembering is that at the same time the first lockdown happened pretty much all of TPE’s 350s were transferred to WMT and interim 185s which filled the void were transferred away. The halving of the frequency on the Manchester Airport to Scotland service meant that we didn’t see the full fallout of the 397’s poor availability and the probable extensive use of the 185s on that route in the absence of 350s. Any 185s on that route would probably be single and made available by taking them off South/North Pennine routes booked for double 185s.

 

[YorksLad12]

What is the current usage of platforms 11 and 12? Would a use of either those platforms for an airport shuttle service cause a problem for existing services?

ISTR P12 being awkward to use, but it has the benefit of being out of the way and something that coud be branded easily. If you had four services (say) per hour I would think about P10 and P11 as dedicated platforms as they are an island and handy for the escalator to P13 & P14 for those who need it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

ISTR P12 being awkward to use, but it has the benefit of being out of the way and something that could be branded easily. If you had four services (say) per hour I would think about P10 and P11 as dedicated platforms as they are an island and handy for the escalator to P13 & P14 for those who need it.

Would these shuttle services be non-stop between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport? The four services per hour would have to fit in with the scheduling of the container freight trains that use the Styal line. What would be the service frequency of the extra stopping services that call at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green?

 

[JonathanH]

The discussion about platforms 9-12 at Piccadilly has been had before. They have a single access point that makes use of platform 13 and 14 awkward so being able to use platforms 11 and 12 more intensively doesn't really help.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The discussion about platforms 9-12 at Piccadilly has been had before. They have a single access point that makes use of platform 13 and 14 awkward so being able to use platforms 11 and 12 more intensively doesn't really help.

You don't want to access platforms 13 and 14 with luggage that you have had to take off a train terminating in the main train shed using those moving walkways, as when you get up to the waiting area at the top, where they like you to wait until your train on platforms 13 or 14 is due, you still have to get your luggage down to the platform level. The lift will only take so many people and the stairs are not a good option if you have luggage.

 

[JonathanH]

You don't want to access platforms 13 and 14 with luggage that you have had to take off a train terminating in the main train shed using those moving walkways, as when you get up to the waiting area at the top, where they like you to wait until your train on platforms 13 or 14 is due, you still have to get your luggage down to the platform level. The lift will only take so many people and the stairs are not a good option if you have luggage.

Yes, this is a valid concern. Almost all services to the airport currently use platform 13. If the frequency at platform 13 was cut right back, it might allow more trains at platform 11 but the problem of the single lead still restricts frequency.

 

[YorksLad12]

Would these shuttle services be non-stop between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport? The four services per hour would have to fit in with the scheduling of the container freight trains that use the Styal line. What would be the service frequency of the extra stopping services that call at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green?

I've no idea. I was saying that IF you wanted an Airport-Piccadilly shuttle then P10 & P11 would be a good place for it, it could be branded up and made obvious.

You don't want to access platforms 13 and 14 with luggage that you have had to take off a train terminating in the main train shed using those moving walkways, as when you get up to the waiting area at the top, where they like you to wait until your train on platforms 13 or 14 is due, you still have to get your luggage down to the platform level. The lift will only take so many people and the stairs are not a good option if you have luggage.

There must be *some* people who have taken luggage down to P13 & P14, surely? People making a connection, perhaps? Most people coming off the hypothetical shuttle wouldn't be going that way, but some might. And some of them that do might be workers. Who can say?

The discussion about platforms 9-12 at Piccadilly has been had before. They have a single access point that makes use of platform 13 and 14 awkward so being able to use platforms 11 and 12 more intensively doesn't really help.

Perhaps we should build P15 & P16, then close P13 & P14 so that PP9-12 can be used more intensively?

The question (going back to the subject) would be on what stock you'd use - how long are the high-numbered terminal platforms? Future stock should relate to the service requirement, as someone mentioned above.

 

[LittleAH]

I think the first step is to properly segregate the local and 'inter city' operations on TPE north. 4 tph 'intercities' stop only at York or Hull/Brough/Selby - Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester - with 2 tph to/from Liverpool. Stop trying to serve Manchester Airport, it just introduces unreliability,

That isn't a good idea at all. Given the backlash from South Yorks about losing their direct service and connectivity - that would be extended across the North of England. Not only does serving the Airport drive leisure revenue (key for the railway in this day and age) but it enables cars being taken off the roads. Plus TRU objective, which is why there is a EOI on new rolling stock, is 4 fast, 2 semi fast and 2 stopping service per hour.

This solution delivers enough capacity using the current infrastructure apart from platform length at Huddersfield, which should become a priority task to improve, even before 4 tracking east of Huddersfield, with possibly even a short term temporary solution while improvements are ongoing.

See Transpennine Route Upgrade

This solution might not be the cheapest in the short term, but long term it would probably be better value for money. The reduction of TPE services to 4 tph fast also addresses another elephant in the room, staff shortages, TPE are still cancelling trains because of staff shortages. Fewer longer trains need less staff, and this also reduces costs as well. A more robust timetable means less delay repay and overtime when things go wrong, so again helps keep costs down. A standardised fleet reduces training requirements.

Which is a result of higher sickness and withdrawing of RDW/IR issues. Again, 4tph requires at least two semi-fast service, and doesn't seem the route upgrade remotely utilised.

Assuming TOCs remain York Scarborough might sit better with Northern.

Again, keeping this as a shuttle completely ignores stakeholder and passenger complaints. Especially, about lack of connectivity to Leeds.

 

[mike57]

Again, keeping this as a shuttle completely ignores stakeholder and passenger complaints. Especially, about lack of connectivity to Leeds.

The passenger complaints are I think more about reliability, Seamer (just outside Scarborough) is my local station, and as a fairly regular traveller passenger comments/complaints hinge around reliability. Is the train going to turn up at all? (During most of 2018/9 and even post covid this is a valid concern) and will it arrive at my destination even remotely on time. Whilst it would be nice to have through services most of the other passenger that I am on 'aquaintance' terms with feel the same way as I do, number 1 priority is reliability, and the full timetable means that meltdowns are frequent. So given a choice between a through service that has an 20% chance of not delivering or a shuttle that runs reliably and to time everyone will opt for the shuttle. Commuting to Leeds is reduced anyway, and will probably never recover to pre-covid levels, and there is a good regular service between York and Leeds, so you are never waiting long, and Leeds is just one destination of many that people from Scarborough use.

During the various periods of TPE meltdown there have been 3 hour gaps in the timetable at Scarborough, and days where nearly half the trains are cancelled. If you try to run a railway in that way people will stop using it. Now people are used to the shuttle, it runs reliably (apart from weekends, but thats a different issue) and you can plan a journey. It also addresses some operational issues at York, as Scarborough trains have to use Plats 3,4 or 5 when coming or going from places west, so ECML problems can also have a big impact. The shuttle uses Plat 2 or 4 and is unaffected by ECML issues.

So going back to a point which has been made before, its very difficult to run services from everywhere to everywhere. One less TPE service through the York - Manchester route seems to make a massive improvement in overall TPE north reliability, and to be honest if one eastern leg is going to become a shuttle Scarborough is the obvious choice. Yes its my local route, and I want good connectivity to London and Manchester for my work, so through trains are nice, but without relability it is useless. I can factor in 15 mins ish to change at York into my plans. Turning up at the station and finding my train to or from Scarborough is cancelled leaving me an hour (or more) late is unacceptable to me, and this seems to be the choice. When the route upgrade is finished it might then be possible to restore the through service, but that is probably 10 years off, these are 'Now' problems

 

[Fokx]

The passenger complaints are I think more about reliability

Poor connection times are currently the number 1 issue for the Scarborough line. Passengers do not enjoy the changeover at York in either direction.

A Leeds to Scarborough shuttle would improve this somewhat rather than a York to Scarborough

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Poor connection times are currently the number 1 issue for the Scarborough line. Passengers do not enjoy the changeover at York in either direction.

A Leeds to Scarborough shuttle would improve this somewhat rather than a York to Scarborough

A York shuttle can operate pretty much segregated from the ECML fasts. A Leeds shuttle cannot. If you still have the conflicts at York, you may as well continue to run it from Manchester or beyond.

 

[Neptune]

Poor connection times are currently the number 1 issue for the Scarborough line. Passengers do not enjoy the changeover at York in either direction.

A Leeds to Scarborough shuttle would improve this somewhat rather than a York to Scarborough

I’m not sure where you’d put it at Leeds though unless it was a single 185. You can’t start terminating additional services in the limited through roads at Leeds. 7 & 14 are the 2 east facing bays but certainly wouldn’t fit a loco hauled rake in.

 

[Fokx]

I’m not sure where you’d put it at Leeds though unless it was a single 185. You can’t start terminating additional services in the limited through roads at Leeds. 7 & 14 are the 2 east facing bays but certainly wouldn’t fit a loco hauled rake in.

Personally in an ideal I’d segregate it and merge it with the York to Leeds stopping service if at all possible, so essentially you’d have a Leeds to Scarborough all stations service using the East facing bays, either using a solitary TPE 185 or as a Northern service.

The demand for Scarborough is seasonal and it’s very rare to see a full train except in peak summer season and school holidays, this could be achieved with an additional shuttle to York in summertime, or extending the proposed Liverpool to York that’s due to operate in summer season only.

 

[YorksLad12]

Poor connection times are currently the number 1 issue for the Scarborough line. Passengers do not enjoy the changeover at York in either direction.

A Leeds to Scarborough shuttle would improve this somewhat rather than a York to Scarborough

A York shuttle can operate pretty much segregated from the ECML fasts. A Leeds shuttle cannot. If you still have the conflicts at York, you may as well continue to run it from Manchester or beyond.

I’m not sure where you’d put it at Leeds though unless it was a single 185. You can’t start terminating additional services in the limited through roads at Leeds. 7 & 14 are the 2 east facing bays but certainly wouldn’t fit a loco hauled rake in.

Personally in an ideal I’d segregate it and merge it with the York to Leeds stopping service if at all possible, so essentially you’d have a Leeds to Scarborough all stations service using the East facing bays, either using a solitary TPE 185 or as a Northern service.

I was going to suggest extending the Huddersfield-Leeds stopper... but York-Scarborough is diesel. You might as well in that case extend the Blackpool-York to Scarborough, as has been suggested previously. The York-Leeds stopper could be added to the Leeds-Huddersfield service one electrified but you might need more units than the four in use on the two halves of that (plus any pathing/timetabling issues).

 

[LittleAH]

The passenger complaints are I think more about reliability,

Strongly disagree. If this was 2019, there was a case. But from my own experience and speaking to others within TPE, stakeholders and passengers alike are not happy with a shuttle just to York. Shuttle service are reliable but do not connect reasonably with service to Leeds and beyond.

During the various periods of TPE meltdown there have been 3 hour gaps in the timetable at Scarborough, and days where nearly half the trains are cancelled.

And when was that? 2019. Irrelevant.

So going back to a point which has been made before, its very difficult to run services from everywhere to everywhere. One less TPE service through the York - Manchester route seems to make a massive improvement in overall TPE north reliability.

This does not factor in A) Stakeholder and passenger demand B) Intentions of TRU or NPR.

 

[mike57]

You might as well in that case extend the Blackpool-York to Scarborough, as has been suggested previously.

Which if I remember rightly was how it used to run years ago, Mid 90s?.

B) Intentions of TRU or NPR.

Problem with this is its 10 years away minimum, and possibly a lot longer. Until then TPE need to run a relaible service. Once the work is complete I would expect a complete recast of the TPE north timetable

 

[JonathanH]

Which if I remember rightly was how it used to run years ago, Mid 90s?.

Yes, some Scarborough to Blackpool North services ran right up until the TPE / Northern split was being planned in the early 2000s.

 

[matacaster]

How about a huddersfield - > Wakefield - >castleford - > York - > scarborough?

 

[Fokx]

How about a huddersfield - > Wakefield - >castleford - > York - > scarborough?

How would that benefit the majority of passengers wanting to travel to Leeds?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I was going to suggest extending the Huddersfield-Leeds stopper... but York-Scarborough is diesel. You might as well in that case extend the Blackpool-York to Scarborough, as has been suggested previously. The York-Leeds stopper could be added to the Leeds-Huddersfield service one electrified but you might need more units than the four in use on the two halves of that (plus any pathing/timetabling issues).

I remember right back in 2004 Mum and I catching an Arriva Trains Northern 158 (from Preston to Blackpool after the 33-minute late Voyager from Oxford) and it had come from Scarborough according to the window label.

Can't see it being a problem now personally.

 

[YorksLad12]

How about a huddersfield - > Wakefield - >castleford - > York - > scarborough?

It would be cancelled between Huddersfield and Castleford, for one thing!