TPE Stock post Northern Electrification Projects

[HSTEd]

Nope, Angel Trains will lobby hard for a DDA Exemption.

If the DfT wants them to run they will run - what a TOC 'wants' has nothing to do with it.

 

[northwichcat]

Pacers to be retained beyond 2020 by DDA exemption.

When was that said? I watched Stephen Hammond's comments live and I'm sure he said that either the owners of Pacers will have to decide whether to refurbish them or withdraw them. He also said the bidders of the next Northern franchise starting in 2016 will need to outline plans for Pacer withdrawal.

Todmorden curve will not see trains until December 2014 at the earliest but more likely May 2015 as there are not enough 319s available to release diesel trains.

I didn't watch the whole thing but didn't see any reference to that. Lancashire County Council has apparently been guaranteed that a unit will be made available for the service in December and they have provided a subsidy for the service to run for 24 months from December 2014.

We knew months ago that the May 2014 timetable would see Manchester-Rochdale services only extended as far as Todmorden due to insufficient rolling stock to extend to Blackburn, despite the Todmorden curve being open by then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we are so upset about 'discrimination against disabled people in the North' we could just take the other option given the operational budget and simply withdraw the Pacers without replacement....

The sensible option would be to use old non-compliant trains on diesel lines with a frequency higher than 1tph then every line in the country would usually have at least an hourly accessible service. However, that would mean the likes of LM and Scotrail swapping some of their modern accessible trains for older non-accessible trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We knew months ago that the May 2014 timetable would see Manchester-Rochdale services only extended as far as Todmorden due to insufficient rolling stock to extend to Blackburn, despite the Todmorden curve being open by then.

Would the extension of the Rochdale service as far as Todmorden be the maximum extra distance that the current units could manage in the timetable pattern without any extra units being required to supplement matters ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nope, Angel Trains will lobby hard for a DDA Exemption.

If the DfT wants them to run they will run - what a TOC 'wants' has nothing to do with it.

Was it not the categorically stated position of Angel Trains that their Class 142 stock would receive no upgrading ?

I am interested in your supposition that DfT have the ability to over-rule matters that are on the Statute Book. At this last meeting, was it not the DfT who took it upon themselves to enter into the Class 170 stock relocation as far back as 2013, without informing any relevant Minister of State ? After the DfT franchising fiasco, the DfT have a lot of very hard work to do to convince people that they have learnt their lesson from that matter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When was that said? I watched Stephen Hammond's comments live and I'm sure he said that either the owners of Pacers will have to decide whether to refurbish them or withdraw them. He also said the bidders of the next Northern franchise starting in 2016 will need to outline plans for Pacer withdrawal.

I agree.
He also didn't say anything about NT 158s moving to TPE.
Or Barrow or Windermere electrification.
Or 319 refurbishment.
Or no more trains for Bolton until electrification (of the Bolton line).

He did say he expected solutions to be found by the TOCs.
And the final date for the 170s at TPE was March 2016 not May 2016.
The DfT could not "unreasonably withhold consent" to the move to Chiltern.

Hansard agrees with what I thought I saw and heard via iPlayer.
Best bit of the debate?
"Passengers of the north, unite! You have nothing to lose but your trains".
(Lilian Greenwood, Lab, Nottingham South).

 

[northwichcat]

Would the extension of the Rochdale service as far as Todmorden be the maximum extra distance that the current units could manage in the timetable pattern without any extra units being required to supplement matters ?

Apparently with the available infrastructure it's a choice of either turn back at Todmorden or go all the way to Blackburn. The existing service to/from Rochdale would need to retain the same frequency.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree.
He also didn't say anything about NT 158s moving to TPE.
Or Barrow or Windermere electrification.
Or 319 refurbishment.
Or no more trains for Bolton until electrification (of the Bolton line).

He did say he expected solutions to be found by the TOCs.
And the final date for the 170s at TPE was March 2016 not May 2016.
The DfT could not "unreasonably withhold consent" to the move to Chiltern.

Hansard agrees with what I thought I saw and heard via iPlayer.
Best bit of the debate?
"Passengers of the north, unite! You have nothing to lose but your trains".
(Lilian Greenwood, Lab, Nottingham South).

I was going to ask about this. If Northern did lose the 9x158 (I assume that these would be the 3 car units bar one?) , would this effectively mean a reduction in capacity on the lines that usually use the x3 units? I'm not sure this would go down well on the Caldervale route in particular, as these have been mooted as part of the improvements on that line.

 

[sprinterguy]

I was going to ask about this. If Northern did lose the 9x158 (I assume that these would be the 3 car units bar one?

Northern only have eight 3-car 158s, don't they? 158752 - 759?

You would hope that any surrendering of rolling stock to TPE would be on a one-for-one basis, so 9 x 2-carriage trains replace 9 x 2-car 170s (Not least because a 2-car 158 has more seats than a 2-car 170). Though I also would have hoped that TPE wouldn't be losing any trains in the first place!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I was going to ask about this. If Northern did lose the 9x158 (I assume that these would be the 3 car units bar one?) , would this effectively mean a reduction in capacity on the lines that usually use the x3 units? I'm not sure this would go down well on the Caldervale route in particular, as these have been mooted as part of the improvements on that line.

As I see it, if TPE can't import any extra stock, they will juggle the 185 fleet to cover the 170 workings.
They will have to postpone some of the strengthening planned elsewhere.
The problem should go away by the end of 2016 when the Manchester-Blackpool service goes electric.

 

[northwichcat]

As I see it, if TPE can't import any extra stock, they will juggle the 185 fleet to cover the 170 workings.

They will have to postpone some of the strengthening planned elsewhere.

The strengthening is set to happen in a few weeks time and with the timetable changes confirmed the 350/4s and 185s won't be able to cover all the timetabled services. They'll be at least 2 diagrams with no unit to run them if you remove the 170/3s even if you assume every diagram will get a single unit.

The problem should go away by the end of 2016 when the Manchester-Blackpool service goes electric.

It screws up the idea of having a new timetable with trains using the Ordsall Chord though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They will have to postpone some of the strengthening planned elsewhere.

Surely the running of actual services over-rides the matter of the strengthening other services.

 

[northwichcat]

I was going to ask about this. If Northern did lose the 9x158 (I assume that these would be the 3 car units bar one?) , would this effectively mean a reduction in capacity on the lines that usually use the x3 units? I'm not sure this would go down well on the Caldervale route in particular, as these have been mooted as part of the improvements on that line.

I think the idea is the Northern Rail routes which are going over to EMU should release much needed extra carriages for other services. However, instead most of the released DMUs will indirectly go to TPE. As no 158s are used on the lines being electrified I'd make an educated guess that 2 car 158s on Victoria-Leeds will be replaced by 150s. The 150s don't have less seats than the 158s but are inferior quality, I don't think any Calder Vale services are timetabled for 90mph running and the 150s are based at Newton Heath so putting them on that service should be easier than other services like Leeds-Nottingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the running of actual services over-rides the matter of the strengthening other services.

To a point. It's no use having 2 carriages turning up on a hourly service and around 350 people not all being able to get on. However, having a lot standing on one service is better than removing another well utilised service from the timetable.

 

[BantamMenace]

Surely the running of actual services over-rides the matter of the strengthening other services.

Agreed, lets hold our position before we advance.

Does anyone know when the ITT for the next northern franchise will be issued so we can pick it apart and try to deduce frequencies, stock and other operational changes?

 

[northwichcat]

Does anyone know when the ITT for the next northern franchise will be issued so we can pick it apart and try to deduce frequencies, stock and other operational changes?

It'll be around a year before the start date.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The strengthening is set to happen in a few weeks time and with the timetable changes confirmed the 350/4s and 185s won't be able to cover all the timetabled services. They'll be at least 2 diagrams with no unit to run them if you remove the 170/3s even if you assume every diagram will get a single unit.

It screws up the idea of having a new timetable with trains using the Ordsall Chord though.

Everything post-2016 depends on the new franchises which have not been specified yet.
I know Dec 2016 is the Ordsall Curve completion date, but NR is not in control of events until there is planning permission.

I would have thought the 319 DMU cascades in 2015/16 will release enough DMUs to meet the shortage around Bolton/Burnley/Hull?
Maybe not of the type preferred by TPE.

 

[northwichcat]

Everything post-2016 depends on the new franchises which have not been specified yet.
I know Dec 2016 is the Ordsall Curve completion date, but NR is not in control of events until there is planning permission.

There is a limit to how much input the bidders can have as the TPE changes need to coincide with Northern changes. Northern can't withdraw the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper in 2016 if TPE don't introduce the North TPE semi-fasts then, so it's likely the ITT will specify an exact date for those changes to happen to ensure they coincide.

I would have thought the 319 DMU cascades in 2015/16 will release enough DMUs to meet the shortage around Bolton/Burnley/Hull?
Maybe not of the type preferred by TPE.

As I said in an earlier post

I think the idea is the Northern Rail routes which are going over to EMU should release much needed extra carriages for other services. However, instead most of the released DMUs will indirectly go to TPE. As no 158s are used on the lines being electrified I'd make an educated guess that 2 car 158s on Victoria-Leeds will be replaced by 150s.

 

[Starmill]

Surely the running of actual services over-rides the matter of the strengthening other services.

Agreed, lets hold our position before we advance.

Does anyone know when the ITT for the next northern franchise will be issued so we can pick it apart and try to deduce frequencies, stock and other operational changes?

I don't think so, because the strengthening is actually going to happen, very soon is it not? From the May timetable the additional services and the strengthening will all be in place as planned, will they not? What will then happen is, either 1, 2 or 3 timetable periods later depending on who you listen to, TPE will lose the 170s. I understand from what jcollins says that if this happens without any additional stock going to TPE this would mean that not only would every single diagram have to go down to a single unit (and bear in mind there are a number of doubles out there at present and will be more from May) but they would still be 2 diagrams short of being able to run cover all services.

So that's a significant step backwards, which will be totally evident. What will also be evident is that if the 170s go and 158s replace them - although all of the services should be covered and strengthening won't decrease, the 158 worked trains will have no first class and considerably longer dwell times at Huddersfield and Leeds.

 

[Whistler40145]

Are there any services which have the luxury of a 156 or 158 that not necessarily warrant such traction?

If yes, should Northern look at using 150s wherever possible on some longer journeys & keeping 142s to shorter journeys?

Should Northern also make better use of its 153s?

 

[northwichcat]

Are there any services which have the luxury of a 156 or 158 that not necessarily warrant such traction?

If yes, should Northern look at using 150s wherever possible on some longer journeys & keeping 142s to shorter journeys?

Regarding which routes get 156s as they provide around 150 seats on a 2 carriage train compared to 100-120 on a Pacer the 156s generally get used on diagrams which contain services where a Pacer would not be able to cope. Services in PTE areas generally get higher priority for the larger trains, even when there's overcrowding on a service outside a PTE area.

Also what has to be remembered is a diagram containing a short service doesn't mean all the services on that diagram are short e.g. the 07:48 Hazel Grove to Manchester is a 156 but the same 156 is then used on the 08:17 Manchester-Chester, 10:04 Chester-Manchester and the 12:17 Manchester-Chester which are journeys 4 times longer in length than the 07:48 Hazel Grove to Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think so, because the strengthening is actually going to happen, very soon is it not? From the May timetable the additional services and the strengthening will all be in place as planned, will they not? What will then happen is, either 1, 2 or 3 timetable periods later depending on who you listen to, TPE will lose the 170s. I understand from what jcollins says that if this happens without any additional stock going to TPE this would mean that not only would every single diagram have to go down to a single unit (and bear in mind there are a number of doubles out there at present and will be more from May) but they would still be 2 diagrams short of being able to run cover all services.

I was basing that claim on what people have posted on here previously - about there being 3 x 4 car 170 diagrams and 1 x 2 car 170 diagram from May and only a couple of strengthened 185 and 350 diagrams Monday-Thursday. TPE do currently plan their maintenance schedules to stretch their units a bit further on Fridays.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Isnt it 2 4 cars on south and a 6 car and 2 car on north. With 2 car only on very off peak services.

 

[deltic08]

In response to LNW-GW Joint and jcollins, who questioned my original post on Hansard, here are the quotes that I interpreted as Pacers continuing beyond 2020 with DDA compliance exemption.

Kate Green, MP for Stretford stated that "many Pacers will not be compliant by 2018"

Amanda Smith MP for Penistone stated " because of the shortage of diesel trains in the UK, Pacer trains which are unsuitable, may have to remain in service for longer than they should. Has the Department considered applying for exemption to disability access regulations for the Pacer trains that could see non compliant vehicles in use beyond 2020?"

Lilian Greenwood, MP for Nottingham South quoted Northern Rail saying in October that "there are no spare trains on the market at the moment." She went on to say "The track will be completed by May but incredibly no train will run on it until December."

Gordon Birtwisle, MP for Burnley stated " I am advised that we are going to get them (trains for the Todmorden curve service) in December, but even that is now in jeopardy.

I think that is what I said in my post about Hansard's report on the debate.

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

Just a small point Middlesborough to Newcastle is 78 mins (depart Middlesborough xx32 arrive Newcastle xx50) not in 3xcess of 90 mins at all however I agree about the state of the pacers especially the old bench seat ones

Don't shoot the messenger. I was just quoting Ian Mearns MP for Gateshead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree.
He also didn't say anything about NT 158s moving to TPE.
Or Barrow or Windermere electrification.
Or 319 refurbishment.
Or no more trains for Bolton until electrification (of the Bolton line).

He did say he expected solutions to be found by the TOCs.
And the final date for the 170s at TPE was March 2016 not May 2016.
The DfT could not "unreasonably withhold consent" to the move to Chiltern.

Hansard agrees with what I thought I saw and heard via iPlayer.
Best bit of the debate?
"Passengers of the north, unite! You have nothing to lose but your trains".
(Lilian Greenwood, Lab, Nottingham South).

You are correct, 319 refurb and Barrow/Morecambe electrification was not mentioned in Hansard. The MP who was going to ask these questions was not given the opportunity. I knew about them from another source and asked if they would be confirmed by the Minister in the debate. Sorry my mistake.

319s were mentioned by Angela Smith, MP, as being a year late, unrefurbished and only three units instead of six units as promised according to a Northern Rail source.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think that is what I said in my post about Hansard's report on the debate.

I appreciate you are reporting the debate in Hansard (which seems very accurate by the way - it amazes me that they can capture all the detail and publish it within hours!).
But the only statement which mattered in the end was from the Minister.
Statements by backbenchers, however well informed, are not DfT policy.

As an example, your post said: "Northern will lose nine 158s to TPEx" as though it was a fact.
The minster made no mention of transfers other than the 170s.
Just trying to get the record straight.

 

[Whistler40145]

If Northern are to loose 9 Class 158s to FTPE, can they be used anywhere that FTPE wishes?

If yes, I'd put 158s onto Blackpool North to Manchester Airport, then release 185s onto services booked for 170s.

Can the 3 Car 158s be temporarily reconfigured as 4 car units by taking out the centre cars from other 3 car units?

 

[deltic08]

I appreciate you are reporting the debate in Hansard (which seems very accurate by the way - it amazes me that they can capture all the detail and publish it within hours!).
But the only statement which mattered in the end was from the Minister.
Statements by backbenchers, however well informed, are not DfT policy.

As an example, your post said: "Northern will lose nine 158s to TPEx" as though it was a fact.
The minster made no mention of transfers other than the 170s.
Just trying to get the record straight.

Stenographers are typing it in real time and at 11.00 am will have been available to put out online after verification.

Replacement of 170s by 158s is in the transcript.
Martin Vickers, MP for Cleethorpes, reported that he had had a reply from TPEx about TPEx services on South Trans Pennine stating that "170s WILL BE removed, 185s will continue with extended four coach trains beginning shortly." What else can it be if not 2x2-car 158 units? I assumed from Northern but suppose it could be from GW, Arriva or Scotrail or all four. Two units from each franchise would sort it in the short term until Manchester-Blackpool is energised.

Who knows, we could even see class 37/4s+four Mk2s a la Workington on the Settle-Carlisle and Leeds-Nottinghams as a stop gap

 

[northwichcat]

If Northern are to loose 9 Class 158s to FTPE, can they be used anywhere that FTPE wishes?

If yes, I'd put 158s onto Blackpool North to Manchester Airport, then release 185s onto services booked for 170s.

Things to note regarding 158s v 185s:
1. The capacity is different.
2. 158s are better for operating in multiple than 185s.
3. The amount of luggage space is different.
4. There is no FC on the Northern 158s.
5. The door layout is different - 185s are better suited to services which use platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly and have a shorter dwell time.
6. The top speed is different.
7. Despite 6 the 158s can run at a higher speed on some sections of track which includes Selby-Hull and Hazel Grove-Sheffield.

Considering all the above I imagine the preferred option would be for 158s to be used on only Manchester-Hull services and to have the 1st class symbol removed from them in the timetables. It used to be the case under ATN that the Hull services didn't usually have FC advertised so they could use the MetroTrain 158s or the 156s on those services.

 

[Whistler40145]

Does anyone know if 158s are passed for Oxenholme to Windermere and Carnforth to Barrow?

That'd release 185s on lines where they don't need them in the short term.

 

[northwichcat]

Stenographers are typing it in real time and at 11.00 am will have been available to put out online after verification.

Replacement of 170s by 158s is in the transcript.
Martin Vickers, MP for Cleethorpes, reported that he had had a reply from TPEx about TPEx services on South Trans Pennine stating that "170s WILL BE removed, 185s will continue with extended four coach trains beginning shortly." What else can it be if not 2x2-car 158 units?

The MP has got mixed up about what is happening in a few weeks time. The 2 car 170 services on South TPE (other than the overnight services) will become 3 car 185 services, two of the 3 car 185 diagrams will become 4 car 170 diagrams.

I assumed from Northern but suppose it could be from GW, Arriva or Scotrail or all four. Two units from each franchise would sort it in the short term until Manchester-Blackpool is energised.

Who knows, we could even see class 37/4s+four Mk2s a la Workington on the Settle-Carlisle and Leeds-Nottinghams as a stop gap

The problem with your idea is ATW and FGW won't be getting any extra stock next year. I suggested an alternative idea in this thread: http://railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1736329&postcount=191 so I won't repeat myself here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does anyone know if 158s are passed for Oxenholme to Windermere?

If 185s and 175s are cleared for a route then there's a 99.9% chance 158s can operate on it.

However, if you're thinking of designating a 158 to Oxenholme to Windermere then you might as well suggest Northern running a Oxenholme to Windermere shuttle instead using a 142 or 156 (depending on the loadings.)

 

[Whistler40145]

I like the idea of turning some Northern services over to 37/4 & LHCS, but which ones?

Some haven't been mentioned as yet:-

Blackpool North to York
Manchester Piccadilly to Chester via Stockport.
Carlisle to Newcastle
Newcastle to Middlesbrough via Sunderland
Blackpool North/Southport to Manchester Victoria

 

[northwichcat]

Manchester Piccadilly to Chester via Stockport.

Can't see loco-hauled working for an all-stops service. However, if it was done alongside service improvements there would be an option for a semi-fast loco-hauled service and freeing up DMUs.

Chester-Stockport (all stops) could be done as an hourly service requiring 4 DMUs.

Chester-Stockport-Manchester semi-fast could be done as an hourly service utilising 4 loco hauled sets.

Considering the Mid-Cheshire line currently uses 5 DMU diagrams and 2 extra DMUs are needed for the peak time Chester-Stockport services, that's effectively 3 DMUs freed up and a service improvement which is needed considering the current level of usage especially away from Manchester in the morning peak and going towards Manchester in the evening peak.

 

[158722]

I like the idea of turning some Northern services over to 37/4 & LHCS, but which ones?

Some haven't been mentioned as yet:-

Blackpool North to York
Manchester Piccadilly to Chester via Stockport.
Carlisle to Newcastle
Newcastle to Middlesbrough via Sunderland
Blackpool North/Southport to Manchester Victoria

Unlikely IMHO; but we shouldn't forget ScotRail as a possible source for 158s. 6 are due to be displaced by the Cumbernauld & Whifflet electrification schemes. Some of these are supposedly to be retained by FSR for additional services during the Inverness Kessock bridge closure and for the Commonwealth games/Ryder cup events, but will six be needed long-term? Some will be required for the Borders line and replacing the Fife 67 hauled turn, but if DfT were to lean on FSR/TS to retain the loco hauled set for another year or, so this could allow 3x 158s (782/786/789 anyone?) to head to NOR. That said, politics will come into play and who would bet against TS insisting that nothing heads south...

Given progress on the E&G wiring scheme, displaced DMUs of any sort look unlikely to be sourced from Scotland in time for TPX/NOR's crunch time from late 2015 onwards.

 

[Haydn1971]

Time to place a bulk order for a few hundred DMU's from China, made up of a mix of 3, 4 & 5 car units for delivery by April 2015

Electrify and cascade just isn't working I'm afraid.

(Removes tongue from cheek)