TPE franchise awarded to First

[Skimble19]

That roof is lovely, isn't it. I'm so glad First Group hasn't wasted money fixing a 40 year old roof, and have instead spent money on a beautiful new sign. It should be in the Tate Modern.

At that height I would imagine the roof is Network Rails responsibility, this is also why when the stations are repainted the new paint will finish at a certain height that might seem random, but shows where the TOC are responsible up to. The parts of stations TOCs are responsible for are generally much better than the parts NR are..

 

[Peter Sarf]

If the plan is to loan 68s off DRS then I think it's a safe bet to presume those locos are an interim measure, especially considering electrification work is being undertaken.

Yes your right. In the case of formation changes (lengthening) I see the DrivingCoaches as the wasted redundancy, the 68s are still useful for freight etc. As for your point I am hoping that some, as yet un-designed, 125mph electric loco will take over once the routes in question are fully electrified. That is why a multiple unit with no means of propulsion or a rake of coaches provides the best future proofing. But, then again, the argument about spreading the horses amongst all the axles comes into play of course - which makes a real multiple unit tempting !.

 

[Philip]

Are TPE Scottish services not going to call at Chorley once the trains are re-routed that way? They did do beforehand, in fact in 2008 most Scotland services used to call at Salford Crescent too.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ordering new electric locos to pull 13 rakes of carriages would be a monumentally stupid idea. There is no possible justification for the existence of electric hauled daytime passenger trains now. EMUs are fundamentally better at everything they could ever set out to do, whether that be speed, passenger carrying capability, operating costs or anything else.

The only electric passenger locos that make any sense are those which would have to carry long rakes of carriages which could not be self-powered on long runs at not-high speed without many calls at stations. That is, the two up and two down Caledonian Sleeper trains every night.

My mind still boggles at the concept that CAF could deliver loco hauled rakes but not more Class 195 100mph diesels in time for the deadline. There's no reason why anyone would want to haul the carriages with an electric locomotive, so pure DMUs would be no less likely to find work in future, while being suitable for many, many more routes.

 

[BurtonM]

Looks like Hud's been fitted out to West Yorkshire Metro's spec signage wise, considering how tacked on the TPE logo is. Maybe TPE didn't pay for the signage and WYMET wanted some publicity?
Resembles a higher-quality and inverted Northern scheme.

Finally managed to spot one of the new livery trains today, well sort of, sitting in Ardwick TMD and I spotted it just about through the bushes. Hopefully I'll get a proper look at one soon enough.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That roof is lovely, isn't it. I'm so glad First Group hasn't wasted money fixing a 40 year old roof, and have instead spent money on a beautiful new sign. It should be in the Tate Modern.

Someone previously suggested that the station roof is outside the scope of what the TOCs are responsible for and responsibility remains with Network Rail.

It'd certainly be nice if the overall roof at HUD could be reglazed, what with the station being grade-1 listed and all that. Then again looking at the state of Leeds station roof after 15 years of diesel fumes have accumulated, maybe waiting until almost everything underneath is electric wouldn't be such a bad idea! Really we're lucky we still have the roof at all given the vandalism carried out at Blackburn, Wakefield Kirkgate and Mirfield. Even the building was slated for demolition in the 1960s until Huddersfield Corporation stepped in. That would've been a bigger loss than the Euston Arch in my opinion.

 

[northwichcat]

Are TPE Scottish services not going to call at Chorley once the trains are re-routed that way? They did do beforehand, in fact in 2008 most Scotland services used to call at Salford Crescent too.

No. Only Bolton between Manchester and Preston.

The Chorley call was because it was Virgin Scottish service was withdrawn and Manchester Airport to Windermere (which did call at Chorley) was diverted to Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ordering new electric locos to pull 13 rakes of carriages would be a monumentally stupid idea. There is no possible justification for the existence of electric hauled daytime passenger trains now. EMUs are fundamentally better at everything they could ever set out to do, whether that be speed, passenger carrying capability, operating costs or anything else.

The problem being the wires that were originally supposed to there in December 2018 aren't now going to be there until December 2022 and the passenger growth is being delayed so additional stock is needed ahead of electrification.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The problem being the wires that were originally supposed to there in December 2018 aren't now going to be there until December 2022 and the passenger growth is being delayed so additional stock is needed ahead of electrification.

I know. What I can't understand is why this extra capacity needs to be provided by rolling stock which would have a hard time finding work in future. Some folk seem to have this idea that once the wires go up, these new carriages could just be coupled to an electric loco and it'll be fine and dandy, like how the diesel engines can be removed from an AT300 to make it electric-only. However, no one would ever choose to use loco hauled rakes on this route once electrification is in place. Once the wires are up, you get some bog-standard EMUs with more capacity, lower running costs and faster speeds. Given the amount of whinging and moaning on this forum that end-doored AT300s would cause the apocalypse, why would TPE choose to use 5 carriage end-doored loco hauled rakes rather than 6 carriage suburban-door EMUs as soon as they have the opportunity?

If extra DMUs were being ordered, the problems wouldn't be as severe because there will be many more places where a DMU will be worthwhile compared to a loco hauled rake. On most rural routes which won't be electrified in a while, the key to improving services is to run them more frequency, which requires operating costs to be as low as possible. That will be perfectly achievable with a fleet of 2 and 3 car DMUs but it won't be possible with rakes of carriages.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The problem being the wires that were originally supposed to there in December 2018 aren't now going to be there until December 2022 and the passenger growth is being delayed so additional stock is needed ahead of electrification.

There are plenty of other options available without ordering new LHCS and wasting money day in, day out over the next 30+ years. New LHCS with a loco up front will be a killer on track access and EC4T charges, it's a long term encumbrance on the franchise or the railway.

I don't understand why TransPennine don't just keep the entire Class 185 fleet and order a handful of extra bi-mode units, with perhaps a handful of LHCS services using old Mark 4 stock to provide capacity uplift prior to the electrification of the route (and further infill in CP6) which will make EMU stock, Class 801 in particular, the only financially sensible option.

There are the HST sets from GWR, they could be given a temporary DDA derogation given they're not massively out of compliance as it stands today, but First do seem pretty intent on making this as complicated as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

First like making things complicated as can be seen by their general rolling stock policies...even for TPE first time around Class 170s would have been cheaper and perfectly adequate.

Meanwhile, I think a uniform fleet of bi-mode 5-car Class 800s would be best for TPE (plus 185s for the slower services) - even on the WCML services because that would allow the ultimate flexibility e.g. things like S&C diversions - but isn't the issue that Hitachi cannot deliver that within a reasonable time period?

 

[TheKnightWho]

First like making things complicated as can be seen by their general rolling stock policies...even for TPE first time around Class 170s would have been cheaper and perfectly adequate.

Meanwhile, I think a uniform fleet of bi-mode 5-car Class 800s would be best for TPE (plus 185s for the slower services) - even on the WCML services because that would allow the ultimate flexibility e.g. things like S&C diversions - but isn't the issue that Hitachi cannot deliver that within a reasonable time period?

That's speculation. I think it's reasonable for the 12 units for the WC Scottish services to be different, as it's quite likely they may be tilting. As for the remaining 13 sets, I have absolutely no idea why they haven't just ordered additional AT300s. Mucking about with LCHS is absurd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's speculation. I think it's reasonable for the 12 units for the WC Scottish services to be different, as it's quite likely they may be tilting. As for the remaining 13 sets, I have absolutely no idea why they haven't just ordered additional AT300s.

As I posted above, is the issue not that Hitachi is unable to deliver any more AT300s in the required timescales, the ones they are getting being possible because they are part of an option from a GWR order?

Otherwise, I would agree that a larger fleet of AT300s would make sense.

I also doubt the WCML order will be tilting, as otherwise that's Pendolino, Pendolino or Pendolino - and on the northern WCML high acceleration EMUs would negate much of the saving anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Are TPE Scottish services not going to call at Chorley once the trains are re-routed that way? They did do beforehand, in fact in 2008 most Scotland services used to call at Salford Crescent too.

I should most certainly hope they don't...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Poor recent health coupled with worries about TPE cancellations caused by a reported driver overtime scenario, has caused my wife and I to use the Range Rover on days when we had intended to use our Senior Citizen Railcards to travel on certain TPE journeys to York. My good lady wife who will be 75 this year does all the driving after my post-stroke 2012 condition.

Have TPE matters improved of late and is the driver's overtime position that was a matter on the previous franchise one that is now affecting the new franchise?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I should most certainly hope they don't...

With the Picc-Vic split coming back, there is a very strong argument for increasing the size of Salford Crescent and stopping everything there for interchange. I'd agree about Chorley, however.

 

[Starmill]

With the Picc-Vic split coming back, there is a very strong argument for increasing the size of Salford Crescent and stopping everything there for interchange. I'd agree about Chorley, however.

I would have thought maybe that Salford Central would be the more appropriate station for all trains to call at because it will have all of the ones going around the chord. I'm not that sure what more could be achieved with Crescent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have thought maybe that Salford Central would be the more appropriate station for all trains to call at because it will have all of the ones going around the chord. I'm not that sure what more could be achieved with Crescent.

Trains going to Picc not via the Chord couldn't call there, though.

If everything was going to call, you could get rid of the through line and build a much bigger and longer island in its place, albeit with a fair bit of disruption while the building actually took place.

 

[Starmill]

Poor recent health coupled with worries about TPE cancellations caused by a reported driver overtime scenario, has caused my wife and I to use the Range Rover on days when we had intended to use our Senior Citizen Railcards to travel on certain TPE journeys to York. My good lady wife who will be 75 this year does all the driving after my post-stroke 2012 condition.

Have TPE matters improved of late and is the driver's overtime position that was a matter on the previous franchise one that is now affecting the new franchise?

Well firstly I would suggest a more efficient road vehicle if it's just the two of you travelling, as that will almost certainly be cheaper than 2 First Class tickets to York with a Senior Railcard.

However, should you wish to use the train in order to avoid the need to drive (which I would), TP North Route PPM in March was 89.6%. Not that great, but very considerably better than it was towards the end of 2015.



Source

I appreciate that what you want more than anything else is a reliable service, I do too, but you might also be somewhat comforted to know that compensation for delays on TransPennine is now available on a no-quibble basis under their Delay Repay scheme.

 

[notlob.divad]

Are the 'Fast' Chorley and Salford connections not being picked up by the new Northern Connect Service between Blackpool and Manchester Airport so that the TPE can become more like the Inter-City service it should be.

 

[Starmill]

Trains going to Picc not via the Chord couldn't call there, though.

If everything was going to call, you could get rid of the through line and build a much bigger and longer island in its place, albeit with a fair bit of disruption while the building actually took place.

Likewise the far greater number of trains coming from Vic can't call at Salford Crescent. Is it sensible to have 2 stations in such proximity to the existing 3 where all trains call?

Are the 'Fast' Chorley and Salford connections not being picked up by the new Northern Connect Service between Blackpool and Manchester Airport so that the TPE can become more like the Inter-City service it should be.

Yes, there are semi-fast Chorley services even today and have been for years in the form of the Manchester Airport <> Blackpool North service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Trains going to Picc not via the Chord couldn't call there, though.
If everything was going to call, you could get rid of the through line and build a much bigger and longer island in its place, albeit with a fair bit of disruption while the building actually took place.

I was thinking today, stuck at Pendleton waiting for a southbound path through Salford Crescent, that a 3rd (eastern) platform on the through line would help a great deal, especially towards Victoria.
Basically Bolton-Victoria traffic would then be clear of Atherton-Oxford Road traffic.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

but First do seem pretty intent on making this as complicated as possible.

What's also odd is that First Group has no history with LHCS (bar GWR/Scotrail sleepers).
If anything, it's Arriva who "like" LHCS, with current ATW and Chiltern operations (though I'm sure it was not their first choice).
They also have an in-house maintenance base at Crewe.

DfT has to OK all rolling stock contracts, even if the TOCs/ROSCOs do all the procurement. They will clearly have to guarantee leasing beyond the 2023 TPE franchise end date.
DfT were clearly leaning towards interim loco+442s in the ITT, which still seems a viable option for, say, 5 years before new EMUs are usable on TP North.

A small fleet of new CAF LHCS stock without CAF maintenance just seems like several steps in the wrong direction, when you have suitable stock already with a proven maintenance base.
Let's hope they are rethinking it all.

 

[northwichcat]

DfT were clearly leaning towards interim loco+442s in the ITT, which still seems a viable option for, say, 5 years before new EMUs are usable on TP North.

The ITT was written on the basis of an up to 2 year delay to North TPE electrification, it said bidders were to assume the wires would be ready by a date no later than December 2020. After the bidding process commenced it was announced electrification had been delayed by 4 years and wouldn't be ready until almost the end of the franchise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was thinking today, stuck at Pendleton waiting for a southbound path through Salford Crescent, that a 3rd (eastern) platform on the through line would help a great deal, especially towards Victoria. Basically Bolton-Victoria traffic would then be clear of Atherton-Oxford Road traffic.

Was there, at any time when the Salford Crescent station was still in the discussion stages, ever thought given to making that station a four-platform junction station with two platform faces serving both the through routes?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The ITT was written on the basis of an up to 2 year delay to North TPE electrification, it said bidders were to assume the wires would be ready by a date no later than December 2020. After the bidding process commenced it was announced electrification had been delayed by 4 years and wouldn't be ready until almost the end of the franchise.

There are better solutions to the 2 year delay than using LHCS.

I really really want to know what question First Group asked that the answer was "CAF new build LHCS with a 125mph electric locomotive".

 

[northwichcat]

There are better solutions to the 2 year delay than using LHCS.

I really really want to know what question First Group asked that the answer was "CAF new build LHCS with a 125mph electric locomotive".

4 year delay: 2 year delay + another 2 year delay.

TPE originally said they had a plan to get new trains in to service by December 2017 - perhaps CAF loco-hauled was the only option for getting new trains in to service by then, given Hitachi can't get AT300 bi-modes in to service by then even though they have an existing design and CAF can't get new Civities in to service until 2018 despite apparently having plenty of spare capacity.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

4 year delay: 2 year delay + another 2 year delay.

TPE originally said they had a plan to get new trains in to service by December 2017 - perhaps CAF loco-hauled was the only option for getting new trains in to service by then, given Hitachi can't get AT300 bi-modes in to service by then even though they have an existing design and CAF can't get new Civities in to service until 2018 despite apparently having plenty of spare capacity.

I don't think CAF are capable of delivering new loco hauled stock prior to December 2017, the Caledonian Sleeper carriages ordered 14 months ago are only to enter service in April 2018.

Bidders also knew that the North TP scheme was delayed by 2 years at the point they were bidding, and the bidders knew unofficially that the scheme was at risk of further delay as a result of the GWep delays.

First in particular will have known the risk North TP wiring was under given they've sat in a number of meetings and have been told plant that should be working on the TP route was still going to be sitting in possession that would be disrupting their GWR business. I'd say they've come up with some sort of plan to win the TPE franchise based on what they knew was happening on the GWML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think CAF are capable of delivering new loco hauled stock prior to December 2017, the Caledonian Sleeper carriages ordered 14 months ago are only to enter service in April 2018.

Though those are a very specialised build. It might be that they can turn out more conventional 23m tubes of seats in less time.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though those are a very specialised build. It might be that they can turn out more conventional 23m tubes of seats in less time.

It could be that the limiting factor is on the engine supply side. Perhaps CAF could build DMU vehicles but they'd then have to sit in a yard in Northern Spain for two years until engines were ready to be fitted- in which case they'd be neither use nor ornament. Hitachi are busy with the assorted SET/AT200/AT300 orders already in, Siemens are busy with 700s and Bombardier (at least at Derby) are busy with the 345s. CAF have just the Northern and Cally Sleepers which are smaller orders than all of the above.

This is of course ignoring any non-UK orders any of the above have in addition. Derby and Newton Aycliffe don't have any overseas work as yet but I'd be surprised if the others only have the current UK orders.

 

[WatcherZero]

Hitachi ordered their engines in 2012 4 years before the trains even entered serial production.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Though those are a very specialised build. It might be that they can turn out more conventional 23m tubes of seats in less time.

Nothing about a continental manufacturer supplying a UK TOC with a new vehicle design is "conventional".
The order volume is also small in manufacturing terms - 65 vehicles is less than the class 175 fleet size - so no economies of scale on either side.
We have no idea how similar a putative CAF vehicle spec for TPE is to the Serco Caledonian Sleeper.
The sleepers won't be doing 125mph for sure, probably no more than 90.

First Group would have known the score on TP electrification during the bidding process and certainly before they were named preferred supplier and signed the franchise contract.
We don't really know what they are contractually committed to yet.
It is probably in terms of frequency/seats/journey time on specific routes as in the SLC specs.
I doubt if "new" stock is contracted, or a specific type or spec (except the promised quality standards).