TPE franchise awarded to First

[465fan]

Shame about the insistence on splitting the Manchester to Edinburgh / Glasgow down still when they could have unified it as 1tph Manchester Airport to Glasgow via Preston, 1tph Liverpool Lime St to Edinburgh via York and then let Virgin do 1tph Euston to Glasgow and 1tph Euston to Edinburgh via Birmingham.

 

[Bevan Price]

Originally Posted by driver9000 View Post
TPE 350s are not permitted to run at 110mph despite being capable of 110mph.

And does anyone know the real reason why not? I've heard various explanations, none of them entirely convincing given that similar machines are running at the higher speed over the southern WCML.

One version I heard it that it only requires a software revision to allow 110 mph. Of course, running at 110 mph takes more power than running at 100 mph, and so costs more. So, even 350/2 could be revised to run at 110 mph - which might be sensible as they still sometimes appear on the Crewe - London Euston services.

 

[43096]

Originally Posted by driver9000 View Post
TPE 350s are not permitted to run at 110mph despite being capable of 110mph.



One version I heard it that it only requires a software revision to allow 110 mph. Of course, running at 110 mph takes more power than running at 100 mph, and so costs more. So, even 350/2 could be revised to run at 110 mph - which might be sensible as they still sometimes appear on the Crewe - London Euston services.

For the 350/2s it would also need the pantograph modifications that the 350/1s had. That doesn't apply to the 350/4s, I believe, as they were delivered to 110mph spec.

As for 350/2s on the Euston-Crewe services, that's just cr@p diagramming/set allocation by control. It's a relic from the old Central Trains days when anything could turn up on anything and just requires some basic common sense. There's even less excuse now they have the 350/3s which are also 110mph capable.

 

[Class 170101]

For the 350/2s it would also need the pantograph modifications that the 350/1s had. That doesn't apply to the 350/4s, I believe, as they were delivered to 110mph spec.

As for 350/2s on the Euston-Crewe services, that's just cr@p diagramming/set allocation by control. It's a relic from the old Central Trains days when anything could turn up on anything and just requires some basic common sense. There's even less excuse now they have the 350/3s which are also 110mph capable.

I understand its more than just pantograph modifications. However I believe I read in the LM extension that the 350/2s were to be uprated to 110mph.

 

[swt_passenger]

I understand its more than just pantograph modifications. However I believe I read in the LM extension that the 350/2s were to be uprated to 110mph.

There were definitely also motor modifications needed, something on the rotors had to be strengthened according to the track access application at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand its more than just pantograph modifications. However I believe I read in the LM extension that the 350/2s were to be uprated to 110mph.

So I understand - but then the difference will be maintained by wifi only being fitted to some of the fleet. Arguably it would make sense to fit it to all of them (it is not exactly expensive) so they could be used interchangeably. 350/2s are surprisingly suitable for the Crewe runs, particularly on weekends, because of the large number of families and groups using them for whom the large number of facing bays of 6 are very attractive compared with the mostly airline seating of the 350/1 and /3.

And if the TPE fleet are to end up with LM at some point, which I suspect they will, might as well make those the same.

 

[Senex]

Shame about the insistence on splitting the Manchester to Edinburgh / Glasgow down still when they could have unified it as 1tph Manchester Airport to Glasgow via Preston, 1tph Liverpool Lime St to Edinburgh via York and then let Virgin do 1tph Euston to Glasgow and 1tph Euston to Edinburgh via Birmingham.

Isn't there actually more traffic between Manchester and Edinburgh than between Manchester and Glasgow? And who's going to want to make the Liverpool to Edinburgh trip the Great Way Round through Leeds (and on a train that will have no pretensions to speed before it reaches York)?

 

[driver9000]

Originally Posted by driver9000 View Post
TPE 350s are not permitted to run at 110mph despite being capable of 110mph.



One version I heard it that it only requires a software revision to allow 110 mph. Of course, running at 110 mph takes more power than running at 100 mph, and so costs more. So, even 350/2 could be revised to run at 110 mph - which might be sensible as they still sometimes appear on the Crewe - London Euston services.

They have always been capable of running above 100mph but there was an issue running in multiple with pan bounce on trailing set and a software glitch restricted them to 50% power using speed set in multiple. This was overcome some time ago and I believe most of the work to enable them to run at 110mph had been completed and it had been waiting on Network Rail but what the real story is I have no idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't there actually more traffic between Manchester and Edinburgh than between Manchester and Glasgow? And who's going to want to make the Liverpool to Edinburgh trip the Great Way Round through Leeds (and on a train that will have no pretensions to speed before it reaches York)?

The Edinburgh service is very busy but the proposed Liverpool to Edinburgh via Newcastle service is in addition to the WCML service rather than replacing it. I doubt there will be many through passengers from Liverpool or west of Manchester making the through journey but it opens up new opportunities for passengers in the pennines and on the east coast.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE 350s are not permitted to run at 110mph despite being capable of 110mph.

Not what the internal company propaganda suggested a while back, but of course happy to be corrected if Im mistaken. I Dont sign 350's so I cant speak from experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My head is hurting trying to work it out but I think they can do the extra trains to Newcastle from ManchestervAirport without any additional units ?

For most of the day there is a unit sat at Newcastlev(a 1 hour turn-a-round) and a unit sag at Liverpool (also on a 1 hour turn-a-round).

By reducing this idle time and the speeding up of the Scarborough services via Chat Moss (that alone will save around 40 minutes on a round trip) I believe they can do it without an extra stock in two years time.

A typical diagram would be (theoretically)

06:05 MIA-NCL (arr 08:50) - this would have terminated at York
09:10 NCL-LIV (arr 12:10)
12:40 LIV-SCA (arr 15:30)
15:50 SCA-LIV (arr 18:35)
19:10 LIV-NCL (arr 22:10)
22:45 NCL-MIA (arr 02:40)

Careful, you maybe onto something that actually makes sense.

We unfortunately dont always have 1hr turnarounds at Liverpool. From 17:10 onwards we only get just 10 mins on the 17:10 Newcastle, 19:10 newcastle which also involves a unit split and 20:22 Newcastle. This is despite other units sitting in the station. Saturdays also only have 10 minutes as incoming newcastles form the scarboroughs and vice vwrsa.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We unfortunately dont always have 1hr turnarounds at Liverpool. From 17:10 onwards we only get just 10 mins on the 17:10 Newcastle, 19:10 newcastle which also involves a unit split and 20:22 Newcastle. This is despite other units sitting in the station. Saturdays also only have 10 minutes as incoming newcastles form the scarboroughs and vice vwrsa.

You'd expect the new TPE timetable with both Liverpools via Chat Moss would mean a better spread of departures/arrivals.
Currently they leave Lime St at 12 (Chat Moss) and 22 (CLC), but a half-hour gap would be better for turnrounds.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

As both services leave york at XX:15 and XX:40 respectively that is currently the case as far as manchester. Obviously the time differential increases with the dewsbury and stalybridge stops before the following XX.15 service catches up, hitting Liverpool just 10 minutes later thanks to the cheshire lines route timing. Current turnaround times at Liverpool are extremely poor at the times it really matters meaning services are often leaving with little to no rubbish clearance and without reservations being applied. From my point of view it reflects on me personally when I cannot provide the service in a suitable condition. Unfortunately thats the result of a high demand service with all available sets being diagrammed as tight as possible to keep the job going with units that cannot cope with the demand. The 185's were supposed to be 59 4 cars, we got 51 3 cars thanks to the DfT.

 

[driver9000]

Not what the internal company propaganda suggested a while back, but of course happy to be corrected if Im mistaken. I Dont sign 350's so I cant speak from experience.

"Coming soon".......

I'm not aware of any date for 110mph running.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They have always been capable of running above 100mph but there was an issue running in multiple with pan bounce on trailing set and a software glitch restricted them to 50% power using speed set in multiple.

The pan bounce is because the OLE isn't tensioned sufficiently for twin pantograph 110mph running, and because the pantograph used by the Class 350 is the budget version of the BR/BW High Speed Pantograph.

Performance would be significantly improved by swapping out the existing pantograph and fitting the deluxe model - that's the one with the aerofoils located underneath the pantograph head, rather than the one with the aerofoils on the knuckle.

The deluxe version does a very good job of keeping the carbon pretty much glued to the contact wire, the budget version does a decent job of keeping the pantograph head in roughly the right place but does little to stop bouncing, where the upper pantograph body and head rises and falls on the knuckle joint.

I never really did understand why BR and BW developed the lower spec version, really, there's not much difference in cost, just marginally lower carbon wear, I believe, at higher speeds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Edinburgh service is very busy but the proposed Liverpool to Edinburgh via Newcastle service is in addition to the WCML service rather than replacing it. I doubt there will be many through passengers from Liverpool or west of Manchester making the through journey but it opens up new opportunities for passengers in the pennines and on the east coast.

True, as well as relieving XC overcrowding. But FWIW if there are cheap Advances available (if it has more spare capacity than the WCML run) people may well go that way. There is not an insignificant amount of London to Edinburgh traffic via the slow trains via Brum because of the availability of cheap Advances even though the journey is over an hour slower than via the ECML.

 

[PrinceBishop]

True, as well as relieving XC overcrowding. But FWIW if there are cheap Advances available (if it has more spare capacity than the WCML run) people may well go that way. There is not an insignificant amount of London to Edinburgh traffic via the slow trains via Brum because of the availability of cheap Advances even though the journey is over an hour slower than via the ECML.

Is anybody able to give a rough estimate of what the time difference might be going from Manchester to Edinburgh via the WCML as opposed to going from Manchester to Edinburgh via the ECML? I remember being surprised at how long it takes to get from Manchester to Edinburgh currently, though I assume I'm right in thinking it will get faster when the new trains come in.

Presumably Manchester to Edinburgh via the ECML will get faster once the line between Manchester and York is electrified. If there isn't a huge difference in timings then people will, I suspect, be attracted to use both routes. Particularly if, as you say, there are cheaper fares available.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Is anybody able to give a rough estimate of what the time difference might be going from Manchester to Edinburgh via the WCML as opposed to going from Manchester to Edinburgh via the ECML? I remember being surprised at how long it takes to get from Manchester to Edinburgh currently, though I assume I'm right in thinking it will get faster when the new trains come in.

I have no idea of the train timings, but in terms of distance (along the motorways) Liverpool to Edinburgh is an extra 75 miles via the M1 rather than the M6 and Manchester to Edinburgh is an extra 45 miles taking the M1 rather than the M6

 

[Camden]

Pretty easy to work out. You already have the journey time to Edinburgh from Manchester via the WCML.

As for via Leeds, take the fast service to Newcastle and add 1.5 hours on top. Voila.

 

[D6975]

Currently Picc-Leeds is typically just under an hour on a 185. Leeds-Edin is just under 3 hours on a Voyager.
Picc-Edi on a 185 is currently just under 3.5 hours on a 350.
So about half an hour slower via Leeds on current route with current stock.
Going via Bolton will stretch that a bit and then there's the different new stock to take into account. Even so, if advances are cheaper that way it's going to be attractive to some.

 

[Viscount702]

But if you were going to Morpeth then it would make more sense to use the East coast route rather than West coast to save changing and probably quicker.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Currently Picc-Leeds is typically just under an hour on a 185. Leeds-Edin is just under 3 hours on a Voyager.
Picc-Edi on a 185 is currently just under 3.5 hours on a 350.
So about half an hour slower via Leeds on current route with current stock.
Going via Bolton will stretch that a bit and then there's the different new stock to take into account. Even so, if advances are cheaper that way it's going to be attractive to some.

Thinking outside the box. If it's only currently 30mins slower, it makes me wonder if Post HS3, HS2 might be going up the East Coast to Scotland.
TPE have 10years to create a market along the route, which is approximately how long it's going to take to have HS3 into some sort of "almost Built " stage.

 

[Senex]

Currently Picc-Leeds is typically just under an hour on a 185. Leeds-Edin is just under 3 hours on a Voyager.
Picc-Edi on a 185 is currently just under 3.5 hours on a 350.
So about half an hour slower via Leeds on current route with current stock.
Going via Bolton will stretch that a bit and then there's the different new stock to take into account. Even so, if advances are cheaper that way it's going to be attractive to some.

But is 3½ hours the best we can ever expect? The net timing for a Pendolino from Preston to Edinburgh calling at Carlisle and Haymarket only appears to be 127 minutes, for a 350 (assuming that the present intermediate calls at Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, and Lockerbie "cost" 3 minutes each) some 11 minutes more -- a substantially slower run. We don't know yet what sort of time between Manchester and Preston will be possible after electrification, but let's assume a pretty pessimistic 35 minutes (well under-a-mile-a-minute) and let's assume 8 minutes recovery. A Pendolino-style unit could do Manchester-Bolton-Preston-Carlisle-Waverley in about 8 minutes under 3 hours. I don't see how even a greatly souped up Manchester-York-Edinburgh could ever come anywhere near that.

 

[Philip]

Is there anything stopping TPE using the new bio-mode units on South TP?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is there anything stopping TPE using the new bio-mode units on South TP?

Well, that's one way of solving the issue of CET tanks getting full...!

 

[Starmill]

"Coming soon".......

I'm not aware of any date for 110mph running.

Which is a real shame given the route generally is so prone to problems, the extra bit of speed would be of real use where you can get it when the inevitable delays occur.

 

[darloscott]

Interestingly I have seen a mention of platform extensions for Yarm station, which can currently only just handle a 3 car 185, with new 5 car units being implemented on Middlesbrough services this would make sense. Does anyone know if this is actually true? I assume Thornaby would need an extension also, but Middlesbrough should be fine for 5 car operation.

 

[Stats]

Interestingly I have seen a mention of platform extensions for Yarm station, which can currently only just handle a 3 car 185, with new 5 car units being implemented on Middlesbrough services this would make sense. Does anyone know if this is actually true? I assume Thornaby would need an extension also, but Middlesbrough should be fine for 5 car operation.

There is an issue in turning 5 car trains around at Middlesbrough that has been brought up by Network Rail in VTEC's application to run services to Middlesbrough. The West Dock siding is not long enough for 5 car 800s and there is not thought to be sufficient capacity for a double shunt in to Middlesbrough sidings.

 

[darloscott]

There is an issue in turning 5 car trains around at Middlesbrough that has been brought up by Network Rail in VTEC's application to run services to Middlesbrough. The West Dock siding is not long enough for 5 car 800s and there is not thought to be sufficient capacity for a double shunt in to Middlesbrough sidings.

That's an interesting one that I hadn't thought of - and I don't think the Guisborough Junction reverse would handle a 5 car either, not to mention potentially having a half hourly (roughly) service out that way towards Nunthorpe in the future making that a lesser preferred option anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

Just run fast to Saltburn and reverse there might be the next option].

 

[TBY-Paul]

Interestingly I have seen a mention of platform extensions for Yarm station, which can currently only just handle a 3 car 185, with new 5 car units being implemented on Middlesbrough services this would make sense. Does anyone know if this is actually true? I assume Thornaby would need an extension also, but Middlesbrough should be fine for 5 car operation.

Thornaby's two platforms are 143 & 146m in length, which I think is long enough for a 5 car unit. Yarm's platforms are both 78m long, so will need some work.

There is an issue in turning 5 car trains around at Middlesbrough that has been brought up by Network Rail in VTEC's application to run services to Middlesbrough. The West Dock siding is not long enough for 5 car 800s and there is not thought to be sufficient capacity for a double shunt in to Middlesbrough sidings.

During the discussion regarding the "Tees Metro" there was mention of re-instating a Platform on the north side of Middlesbrough Station. A platform on the north side is not something I remember, but I'm not overly familiar with Middlesbrough stations history.

 

[pennine]

Just run fast to Saltburn and reverse there might be the next option].

I wonder if the recent platform extension of platform 2 at Redcar Central could accommodate this. Often when delayed trains are terminated at Redcar they use platform 2 and reverse out, as a facility does exist for train to switch to the westbound line on departure. This could save another half hour off going all the way to Saltburn.