TPE Scottish services

[AndrewE]

I've read your posts but your proposal makes no sense. If you want long distance passengers to have priority then it has to apply in both directions, otherwise it is a completely unfair system.

As I already explained eastbound a Huddersfield-Scarborough might be prevented from boarding at the expense of passengers making shorter journeys (including the Manchester to Leeds journey you're making!) Your proposal is effectively "Prevent passengers who are making shorter journeys than me westbound from boarding so there's a seat for me and I don't care if passengers making even longer journeys than myself eastbound are unable to board." The railway isn't run for the benefit of you. If you want a service which is then get a taxi instead.

If there's no problem eastbound then why invent and apply a totally irrelevant and pointless restriction? No-one is suggesting stopping anyone boarding eastbound, it's just that you don't seem to be able to understand that peak/tidal flows may not be perfectly symmetrical. These sorts of restrictions (also not symmetrical if not needed) are the norm in lots of places, including into and out of London, or hadn't you noticed?

I think we would agree that there is no need for a restriction eastbound, so why do you insist one must be applied?

I repeat, the problem is [only] in the afternoon westbound from Leeds, when long distance travellers lose an hour or even more (depending on their onward connections) because they can't physically get into the train from Leeds. Forget eastbound, even if it is your journey (or some other reason for your hangup.) It's not a problem. Westbound is.

P.s. I wonder whether we can't understand each other because I'm suggesting access restrictions to a particular train (once an hour westbound & only in the period when there is a problem - which might even disappear with a 6- or 8-coach train) whereas you might be reading it as a blanket ban on the use of all Leeds Huddersfield tickets on all Transpennine trains?

 

[northwichcat]

If there's no problem eastbound then why invent and apply a totally irrelevant and pointless restriction? No-one is suggesting stopping anyone boarding eastbound, it's just that you don't seem to be able to understand that peak/tidal flows may not be perfectly symmetrical. These sorts of restrictions (also not symmetrical if not needed) are the norm in lots of places, including into and out of London, or hadn't you noticed?

I think we would agree that there is no need for a restriction eastbound, so why do you insist one must be applied?

No you're saying there's no need for an eastbound restriction because it doesn't cause any problems for you. Unless there's more passengers travelling westbound in the evening peak than eastbound in the morning peak then a problem exists in both directions, the difference is it affects different passengers. In the evening it affects passengers travelling beyond Huddersfield from Leeds, in the morning it affects passengers attempting to travel from Huddersfield. If you think all Huddersfield passengers are ending their journeys at Leeds you're very wrong. Unlike Manchester and Leeds, Huddersfield doesn't have direct services to London, Birmingham or Scotland so a higher proportion of Huddersfield passengers have to change to reach their final destination.

I've explained the same thing three times and tried to make it as simple and straight forward as possible since you seem to have difficulty understanding it. If you still don't understand then the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree.

The long distance services to/from London are non-comparable to North TPE. They all start or terminate at a major London station, only 1/5th of North TPE services start/terminate at Manchester and no standard pattern services start or terminate at Leeds. If you wanted to compare North TPE to XC services serving Leeds then fair enough.

I wonder whether we can't understand each other because I'm suggesting access restrictions to a particular train (once an hour westbound & only in the period when there is a problem - which might even disappear with a 6- or 8-coach train) whereas you might be reading it as a blanket ban on the use of all Leeds Huddersfield tickets on all Transpennine trains?

No. If anything I think that'll make the problem worse.

If the Leeds departures were:
17:00
17:12
17:25
17:40
17:52

And you bar Huddersfield passengers from the 17:25, then that could make the problem worse for the 17:40 - some Manchester passengers won't be able to get there in time for the 17:25, while Huddersfield passengers who are there in time for it will have to wait until the 17:40. Then if the 17:25 was a Victoria service and the 17:40 was a Piccadilly service or vice versa then some Manchester passengers who are there in time for the 17:25 will wait for the 17:40 so they travel to their preferred Manchester station.

 

[AndrewE]

No you're saying there's no need for an eastbound restriction because it doesn't cause any problems for you. Unless there's more passengers travelling westbound in the evening peak than eastbound in the morning peak then a problem exists in both directions, the difference is it affects different passengers. In the evening it affects passengers travelling beyond Huddersfield from Leeds, in the morning it affects passengers attempting to travel from Huddersfield. If you think all Huddersfield passengers are ending their journeys at Leeds you're very wrong. Unlike Manchester and Leeds, Huddersfield doesn't have direct services to London, Birmingham or Scotland so a higher proportion of Huddersfield passengers have to change to reach their final destination.

The long distance services to/from London are non-comparable to North TPE. They all start or terminate at a major London station, only 1/5th of North TPE services start/terminate at Manchester and no standard pattern services start or terminate at Leeds. If you wanted to compare North TPE to XC services serving Leeds then fair enough.

I've explained the same thing three times and tried to make it as simple and straight forward as possible since you seem to have difficulty understanding it. If you still don't understand then the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree.

I think a lot of morning and evening peak flows are asymmetrical, in that the morning one is much more spread out and doesn't have optional/leisure travellers mixed in with it. So there might well be problems on evening trains where there aren't in the morning.

All the times I have been to and from Leeds I have never been aware of eastbound passengers being left behind at either Huddersfield or Leeds, but that might be because of the times I travel. I haven't noticed serious eastbound overcrowding in the evening peak out of leeds either, unlike the westbound trains. If you know better, please say, but you haven't actually commented on whether you recognise that a problem exists yet, or whether you think there is an equal one in the other direction.

You are right, long-distance passengers connecting into the westbound transpennine trains at Leeds obviously need to be able to continue their journeys, so I would say the restriction (on the most overcrowded westbound trains only, note) ought to be something like "At Leeds only picks up passengers either connecting off trains from outside the conurbation, or travelling [on this train] beyond Huddersfield.

This does seem complicated, and maybe the problem will disappear when the extra stock arrives. I suspect it won't though, as the trains will just fill up from the present suppressed demand.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes there are more leisure travelers in the evening peak than morning peak. However, in the morning peak school/college pupils travel at the same time as workers, whereas they normally go home before the workers finish work.

 

[Peter0124]

Does anyone know why Glasgow only gets 4 car 350s unlike Edinburgh which gets the occasional 8 car. Is this due to capacity at Glasgow Central?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Relative demand I believe.

 

[driver9000]

Higher passenger loadings to Edinburgh and less frequent service when Virgin and TPE offering is combined is the simplest answer.

 

[route101]

Im sure 8 car 350 s have operated to Glasgow though not seen one in a while.

 

[Failed Unit]

Im sure 8 car 350 s have operated to Glasgow though not seen one in a while.

They did in the commonwealth games. Normally 1 TPE unit and 1 London midland one.

 

[sprinterguy]

You didn't have this kind of problem in the 90s. It was usually a rake of 7 mk2 coaches, pulled by a class 47 and it ran every couple of hours, via Bolton. The service seemed to run well even though not as frequent; it had a real 'intercity' feel to it.

Looking at a 1999/2000 timetable, there were five through trains a day via Manchester Piccadilly in each direction, one of which was a 2-car class 158 to/from Manchester Airport, and there were fewer than that earlier in the nineties as far as I can see. I don't deny that the Manchester - Scotland route would suit longer distance style stock, but the modern day service has very much been a victim of its own success as a result of the dramatic increase in frequency. I wouldn't like to see how a 2-car class 158 would cope with passenger numbers on the route these days!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think a lot of morning and evening peak flows are asymmetrical, in that the morning one is much more spread out and doesn't have optional/leisure travellers mixed in with it. So there might well be problems on evening trains where there aren't in the morning.

In general terms you couldn't be more wrong. One thing that all transport operators are aware of is how the morning peak is much more pronounced with the evening peak being much more spread out, as others have already explained. There has been some distortion to that, especially around the North's great cities, with people using the train to go shopping and getting caught up with commuters on the way home. And Northern Rail responded to this trend by introducing the evening restrictions on many Cheap Day Return fares. If you are oblivious to this it just goes to show how true it actually is as your morning journey is obviously away from the high peak. And that morning concentration includes the fact that many leisure type fares are not valid at all.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What on earth has Leeds, York and Penistone line crowding got to do with a thread relating to Scottish services??

Well, from 2019 there will be through hourly TPE Liverpool-Edinburgh services via Leeds and York.
That will certainly change the game for Manchester-Scotland services.
Though I would much rather they ran via Carlisle and solved the capacity problem there.

 

[Mathew S]

Well, from 2019 there will be through hourly TPE Liverpool-Edinburgh services via Leeds and York.
That will certainly change the game for Manchester-Scotland services.
Though I would much rather they ran via Carlisle and solved the capacity problem there.

There will also be additional Liverpool-Glasgow via Carlisle services, though I think only 4 daily.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[Senex]

Well, from 2019 there will be through hourly TPE Liverpool-Edinburgh services via Leeds and York.
That will certainly change the game for Manchester-Scotland services.

Will it? These trains will be significantly slower than the already slow WCML services, so unless there's a pricing policy to attract leisure travellers who are not time-sensitive I can't see many people wanting to go ECML rather than WCML.

Though I would much rather they ran via Carlisle and solved the capacity problem there.

Agreed!

 

[Altfish]

Not quite, 2x350 can stop at Oxford Road but they only open the doors on one of the two units.

But they will block the throat and prevent other trains entering the platforms.

 

[Altfish]

Well, from 2019 there will be through hourly TPE Liverpool-Edinburgh services via Leeds and York.
That will certainly change the game for Manchester-Scotland services.
Though I would much rather they ran via Carlisle and solved the capacity problem there.

As has been said previously, I don't think it'll make much difference at all.
If you are going from any of the Manchester Stations you would go via Carlisle; if you are going from Liverpool then change at Wigan or Preston until the 'directs' start.

Currently, the TPE trains from Piccadilly take just less than 3hrs 30mins to Edinburgh.
TPE from Manchester Victoria to Newcastle is about 2hrs 20 min; it's a further 90 minutes to Edinburgh. Which gives you 3hrs 50mins.

 

[tbtc]

As has been said previously, I don't think it'll make much difference at all.
If you are going from any of the Manchester Stations you would go via Carlisle; if you are going from Liverpool then change at Wigan or Preston until the 'directs' start.

Currently, the TPE trains from Piccadilly take just less than 3hrs 30mins to Edinburgh.
TPE from Manchester Victoria to Newcastle is about 2hrs 20 min; it's a further 90 minutes to Edinburgh. Which gives you 3hrs 50mins.

If the times are 3h30 (WCML every two hours) vs 3h50 (ECML every hour) then there are going to be a lot of times per day when it's quicker to get the hourly ECML service rather than wait for the next bi-hourly WCML service.

Plus a lot of TPE passengers are already on discounted advanced tickets (which is one of the reasons that the Manchester - WCML - Scotland route became a lot busier once no longer operated by the same Virgin who ran alternative services from Lancashire to Scotland), and TPE will be able to use the advanced tickets to manipulate flows up the WCML and ECML to suit which services are busiest.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There will also be additional Liverpool-Glasgow via Carlisle services, though I think only 4 daily.

3 a day, most of which are merged with Manchester services at Preston.
(in the franchise docs).

Whatever the logic, more new capacity is being provided to Edinburgh via the ECML than the WCML.

 

[Mathew S]

3 a day, most of which are merged with Manchester services at Preston.
(in the franchise docs).

Whatever the logic, more new capacity is being provided to Edinburgh via the ECML than the WCML.

Wasn't sure if it was three or four. And even merged with the Manchesters it's still additional capacity north of Preston / via Carlisle. Better than nothing.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[Starmill]

If the times are 3h30 (WCML every two hours) vs 3h50 (ECML every hour) then there are going to be a lot of times per day when it's quicker to get the hourly ECML service rather than wait for the next bi-hourly WCML service.

This is already the case.

For example, on a weekday morning Manchester Piccadilly to Edinburgh:

1015, direct train, 3h11 (TP)
1046, change at Preston, 3h 31 (NT, VT)
1057, change at York, 4h 10 (TP, XC)
1126, change at York, 3h 51 (TP, GR)
1215, direct train, 3h 25 (TP)

This pattern then repeats itself. These are the fastest available journeys, so you cannot depart later and arrive earlier.

This goes to demonstrate that, if one change is acceptable to you, and you miss the 1046 Blackpool North service, you have no choice but to go via York if you would like to take the quickest available trains to Edinburgh. Of course the majority of passengers will not take this option if they have walk-on tickets because the price premium for doing so is huge. If you took the 1057 you would arrive in Edinburgh at 1507, but if you just waited for the next journey that you could use your route Carlisle ticket on, you would arrive at 1540.

 

[Viscount702]

Remember the Edinburgh will go from Victoria not Piccadilly so if you want the direct EC train you will have to get to Victoria to pick it up.

 

[Altfish]

Remember the Edinburgh will go from Victoria not Piccadilly so if you want the direct EC train you will have to get to Victoria to pick it up.

Only the ones that start in Liverpool; the ones that start at the Airport will still go via Piccadilly

 

[Tomnot27]

Won't wcml services be going 125mph with the new trains rather than the current top speed of 100mph on the 350's meaning reduced journey times

 

[Senex]

Won't wcml services be going 125mph with the new trains rather than the current top speed of 100mph on the 350's meaning reduced journey times

No tilt on the new trains, so 110 maximum only.

 

[driver9000]

No tilt on the new trains, so 110 maximum only.

That might not be an issue. The 397s are 125mph capable for a reason. We'll have to see what they come up with.

 

[driver9000]

Won't wcml services be going 125mph with the new trains rather than the current top speed of 100mph on the 350's meaning reduced journey times

The 350/4s are 110mph units.

 

[Senex]

That might not be an issue. The 397s are 125mph capable for a reason. We'll have to see what they come up with.

Are you thinking of some upgrading in time for the through trains north off HS2?

 

[driver9000]

Are you thinking of some upgrading in time for the through trains north off HS2?

The possibilites of running above 110mph on some sections of existing infrastructure has been doing the rounds recently.

 

[class26]

The possibilites of running above 110mph on some sections of existing infrastructure has been doing the rounds recently.

Here`s a thought.

Virgin have been trying to get some sections of the WCML lifted to 135 mph for pendolinos, (note NOT 140 mph as that would require in cab signalling) but the HS2 stock WILL have in cab signalling so perhaps on these sections that Virgin have in mind the HS2 trains could run at 140 mph or more ? I understand a reasonable length of track in the Lockerbie area is one such suitable stretch, there may be more. This would help compensate for these trains being limited to 110 mph on other sections (if they are).
I wonder if this is possible and if so , has it been factored into HS2 to Scotland`s timings?

 

[northwichcat]

No tilt on the new trains, so 110 maximum only.

First proposed using the same trains on Birmingham-Scotland services in their West Coast franchise bid. They also mentioned they would work with Network Rail with a view of getting them cleared for running at 115mph.