TransPennine Express North Route, New Timetable

[Greybeard33]

The Edinburgh/Glasgow's generally don't share with anything at the Airport, occasionally the Crewe service comes on top at certain times.

Really? According to the Working Timetable the 0747, 1047, 1147, 1347, 1447, 1547 and 1647 350 arrivals are all booked to use Platform 4B, on top of a TPE North 185 in Platform 4A. The 2144 arrival uses 2A, with a Northern Barrow service arriving behind in 2B. The 2240 and 2341 arrivals both go into Platform 4, to be joined for the 0002 ECS to Ardwick.

Randomly choosing Thursday 20 December to sample what really happened, all the above but the 1147, 1347 and 1447 actually did share platforms as per the WTT - see http://www.charlwoodhouse.co.uk/rail/liverail/full/MNCRIAP/20/12/18.

If 5-car 397s replace the 350s under the current timetable, I think there can be little doubt there will be more delays at the Airport.

 

[Andyh82]

Perhaps a silly suggestion but how about pulling the Middlesbrough and Newcastle trains back to Victoria and having a Northern stopper service from Victoria to Airport every say 20/30 mins? This would be a compromise between the local services that have been a bit messed up on the Styal Line and the intercity travel.

Admittedly I don’t know much about this, but just I’d add something!

My suggestion, which is probably easier said than done, would be to run the airport services direct to Piccadilly instead of the tour of Manchester. This quicker route means they’d be able to arrive at the airport a bit earlier and leave a bit later, meaning they’d be able to go back to the pre Dec18 situation where Newcastle and Middlesbrough services don’t interwork.

This would save two paths via Manchester Oxford Road, one could be the Calder Valley service which would maintain the Vic to Picc link. One could maybe be the Huddersfield stopper that could maybe terminate at Manchester Oxford Road in the bay.

Of course they’d be back to crossing the whole throat at Piccadilly again but that seems to me to be nowhere near as problematic as the post May18 changes were.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would sending the stock down to Wilmslow to reverse in platform 2, which normally only sees one passenger an hour and one freight path, work? It's around 10 minutes from MIA, so including reversal would be ideal timewise with a 40 minute turnround, and should the inbound TPE be too late it could simply wait at MIA instead.

The evening terminator seems to happily reverse there, even though it's booked to shunt to platform 1. Yes, it'd be a few more miles and a bit more route knowledge (Crewe maybe, just for safety's sake in case of points failure?), but it'd sure beat trying to fit any more platforms into MIA, and be a whole lot cheaper. Probably even worth employing a shunt driver there if the current turnaround includes a rest period.

If interworking is to be ended, so that the Middlesbrough service can be worked by Mk5As and the Newcastle by 802s, the turnrounds would have to increase to 70 minutes rather than 40. Then reversals at Wilmslow would mean there would always have to be at least two trains south of the Airport, one Middlesbrough and one Newcastle. I do not see how this could leave room for the hourly Liverpool - Crewe service to pass in both directions, unless a new siding were constructed.

Perhaps a silly suggestion but how about pulling the Middlesbrough and Newcastle trains back to Victoria and having a Northern stopper service from Victoria to Airport every say 20/30 mins? This would be a compromise between the local services that have been a bit messed up on the Styal Line and the intercity travel.

In which case they could continue to run in to Piccadilly, as they wouldn't have to cross the station throat.
However if the N Wales trains are diverted to Vic as suggested above then people off them for the NE would be significant losers.

The Newcastle and Middlesbrough to Airport could only be cut back to Piccadilly (via Guide Bridge) if sufficient platform space could be found to terminate them in the low-numbered Piccadilly platforms, which are pretty full. I should think that the Huddersfield stopper and the Picc - Hull would both have to be diverted to Victoria to make room. In which case it might make more sense to terminate the Middlesbrough and Newcastle at Victoria instead as MetroCar4058 suggested, so that all four fast services to Leeds are from the same Manchester station.

 

[MDB1images]

Really? According to the Working Timetable the 0747, 1047, 1147, 1347, 1447, 1547 and 1647 350 arrivals are all booked to use Platform 4B, on top of a TPE North 185 in Platform 4A. The 2144 arrival uses 2A, with a Northern Barrow service arriving behind in 2B. The 2240 and 2341 arrivals both go into Platform 4, to be joined for the 0002 ECS to Ardwick.

Randomly choosing Thursday 20 December to sample what really happened, all the above but the 1147, 1347 and 1447 actually did share platforms as per the WTT - see http://www.charlwoodhouse.co.uk/rail/liverail/full/MNCRIAP/20/12/18.

If 5-car 397s replace the 350s under the current timetable, I think there can be little doubt there will be more delays at the Airport.

Apologies, was forgetting you was referencing the timetable coming in from December.
I've yet to arrive on top of anything but I'm sure It will come looking at those figures!

 

[Greybeard33]

My suggestion, which is probably easier said than done, would be to run the airport services direct to Piccadilly instead of the tour of Manchester. This quicker route means they’d be able to arrive at the airport a bit earlier and leave a bit later, meaning they’d be able to go back to the pre Dec18 situation where Newcastle and Middlesbrough services don’t interwork.

This would save two paths via Manchester Oxford Road, one could be the Calder Valley service which would maintain the Vic to Picc link. One could maybe be the Huddersfield stopper that could maybe terminate at Manchester Oxford Road in the bay.

Of course they’d be back to crossing the whole throat at Piccadilly again but that seems to me to be nowhere near as problematic as the post May18 changes were.

Comparison of timings pre- and post-May 2018 shows only only one or two minutes diference in running times between Stalybridge and the Airport via the Ordsall Chord, versus via Guide Bridge with a reversal at Piccadilly. So I doubt that this would give long enough turnrounds even if paths could be found. I think it would be necessary to revert to the pre-May timetable throughout the TPE core, which would have far-ranging repercussions.

 

[Andyh82]

Comparison of timings pre- and post-May 2018 shows only only one or two minutes diference in running times between Stalybridge and the Airport via the Ordsall Chord, versus via Guide Bridge with a reversal at Piccadilly. So I doubt that this would give long enough turnrounds even if paths could be found. I think it would be necessary to revert to the pre-May timetable throughout the TPE core, which would have far-ranging repercussions.

Indeed, but I don’t think you’d want more 2 mins in each direction, as too much and you end up with the services blocking the platforms at the Airport too long. The difference is that you wouldn’t get them getting caught up in the round Manchester congestion so should in theory run closer to the timetable

 

[CHAPS2034]

If interworking is to be ended, so that the Middlesbrough service can be worked by Mk5As and the Newcastle by 802s, the turnrounds would have to increase to 70 minutes rather than 40. Then reversals at Wilmslow would mean there would always have to be at least two trains south of the Airport, one Middlesbrough and one Newcastle. I do not see how this could leave room for the hourly Liverpool - Crewe service to pass in both directions, unless a new siding were constructed.

There is already a down reversing siding just south of Wilmslow Station which has direct access from both down and up Styal lines. Not sure how long is it though - sure someone will know.

 

[Greybeard33]

There is already a down reversing siding just south of Wilmslow Station which has direct access from both down and up Styal lines. Not sure how long is it though - sure someone will know.

From Google Maps satellite imagery, the Wilmslow reversing siding is about 263m. Plenty long enough for a Mk5A set + 68 (112 + 20.5m) or a 5-car 802 (130m) and maybe just about long enough, at a squeeze, for both at the same time!

 

[Greybeard33]

Indeed, but I don’t think you’d want more 2 mins in each direction, as too much and you end up with the services blocking the platforms at the Airport too long. The difference is that you wouldn’t get them getting caught up in the round Manchester congestion so should in theory run closer to the timetable

Good point. But I doubt paths across Piccadilly throat could be found to match the current timetable. Under the pre-May timetable the throat crossings in opposite directions were paired to minimise conflicts with other services. Arrivals at Picc from the Airport at xx22 and xx49, with departures to the Airport a couple of minutes later at xx24 and xx52. Now arrivals in Platform 13 are at xx03 and xx33, with departures from P14 at xx21 and xx51.

 

[Kite159]

Crayonist time, could one of those TPE services get extended to say Crewe, running fast from Wilmslow. Frees up space at the airport and creates new journeys (including a 2nd train an hour into the airport from the South)

 

[Chester1]

Crayonist time, could one of those TPE services get extended to say Crewe, running fast from Wilmslow. Frees up space at the airport and creates new journeys (including a 2nd train an hour into the airport from the South)

Its not crayonista, extending an Airport service to Crewe was an optional extra in franchise bids that First chose not to go for. It would require one extra unit (or set) and eat into recovery times a little. I am not sure a suitable path could be found.

 

[jfollows]

Crayonist time, could one of those TPE services get extended to say Crewe, running fast from Wilmslow. Frees up space at the airport and creates new journeys (including a 2nd train an hour into the airport from the South)

I'd love it, the fact that the service Manchester Airport to Wilmslow is only hourly stops me using it, I just get a taxi for £20 when I get off a flight.
However, even if a path exists, there'd probably be no room for it at Crewe, it's hard enough finding room for the local services from Wilmslow which terminate there. Especially since the London-Liverpool services call at Crewe now and occupy a platform.
So why not extend it to .... Derby .... oh, this is getting silly!
It would also end up being diverted away from Manchester Airport to make up time when running late, just like the Liverpool-Crewe service.

 

[Andyh82]

I don’t know how up to date the imagery is, but it looks to me that Platforms 1 and 4 could be lengthened with relative ease?

 

[AndrewE]

I don’t know how up to date the imagery is, but it looks to me that Platforms 1 and 4 could be lengthened with relative ease?

Are you talking about the Airport, Wilmslow or Crewe? If Crewe, using 1 means walking about a mile south already.
There's loads of room in Pfm 1 for 2 non London-bound trains though as it easily holds an 11-car pendolino, there's also no problem getting in and out from Manchester without conflicting with the WCML or platform 5, also there's a nice long loop in the Manchester direction but it looks as though it might not be signalled for down direction (and there's no connection to the down line either! Doh! Who took out Sydney Bridge Junction?)

 

[Greybeard33]

I don’t know how up to date the imagery is, but it looks to me that Platforms 1 and 4 could be lengthened with relative ease?

I believe you are suggesting platform extensions at the Airport? Considering that extensions of at least 30m would be needed to enable a 4-car Northern train to be stacked on top of a 5-car TPE, can you clarify why you think these would be "relatively easy", and how long you think the project would take?

 

[BMIFlyer]

I believe you are suggesting platform extensions at the Airport? Considering that extensions of at least 30m would be needed to enable a 4-car Northern train to be stacked on top of a 5-car TPE, can you clarify why you think these would be "relatively easy", and how long you think the project would take?

I don’t know how up to date the imagery is, but it looks to me that Platforms 1 and 4 could be lengthened with relative ease?

It will require movement of the signalling and the pointwork plus OLE changes. Not easy.

Only other option is to extend at the buffer stop ends, but that creates its own problems.

 

[Greybeard33]

The TPE May 2019 timetables have now been loaded. The platform allocations at Scarborough suggest 70 minute turnrounds.

The platform allocations at Manchester Airport suggest continued interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services, with 40 minute turnrounds. As previously discussed, this implies that 3-car 185s will continue to work these services until December.

 

[BMIFlyer]

The TPE May 2019 timetables have now been loaded. The platform allocations at Scarborough suggest 70 minute turnrounds.

The platform allocations at Manchester Airport suggest continued interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services, with 40 minute turnrounds. As previously discussed, this implies that 3-car 185s will continue to work these services until December.

The 70 mins at the beach is correct. The driver and guard stay with the train so to speak. Makes crew diagramming for the loco hauled sets easier.

 

[scarby]

Isn't the 70-minute turnaround at Scarborough also, when the new depot is eventually complete and the new trains are running, to facilitate servicing of the trains at the new depot? The trains will run out of the station, and be serviced at the depot before their next departure? At least this is how I imagined it is going to work - otherwise the new depot wouldn't be used.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Isn't the 70-minute turnaround at Scarborough also, when the new depot is eventually complete and the new trains are running, to facilitate servicing of the trains at the new depot? The trains will run out of the station, and be serviced at the depot before their next departure? At least this is how I imagined it is going to work - otherwise the new depot wouldn't be used.

No, the trains (2) will go onto the depot at night and come back onto the station in the morning.

 

[Chester1]

The TPE May 2019 timetables have now been loaded. The platform allocations at Scarborough suggest 70 minute turnrounds.

The platform allocations at Manchester Airport suggest continued interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services, with 40 minute turnrounds. As previously discussed, this implies that 3-car 185s will continue to work these services until December.

The 70 mins at the beach is correct. The driver and guard stay with the train so to speak. Makes crew diagramming for the loco hauled sets easier.

That means 6 sets to run Liverpool-Scarborough? What about the rest? From what Greybeard has said they cannot use the others on Airport-Middlesbrough until December. If double 185s cannot be used on North TPE Airport services until December, is there any chance of doubling south TPE services early?

 

[BMIFlyer]

That means 6 sets to run Liverpool-Scarborough? What about the rest? From what Greybeard has said they cannot use the others on Airport-Middlesbrough until December. If double 185s cannot be used on North TPE Airport services until December, is there any chance of doubling south TPE services early?

The plan is to cover the coast to coast route first, releasing 185’s

There will be a requirement for 2 class 185’s at the very least to cover the new WCML diagrams.

We are also a class 350 short due to collision damage and that has to go to Germany for repairs after hitting horses at 110mph.

 

[scarby]

No, the trains (2) will go onto the depot at night and come back onto the station in the morning.

I see, thanks. So the depot will only be used to service the two trains that stay overnight. While that means it will be used every night, and I am very pleased that Scarborough is getting a depot of sorts, it seems it's an investment for quite limited use. I guess though it must make sense in the bigger scheme of things.

 

[Bikeman78]

No it's just even fewer (or no) 6 car sets. Increasing layovers at Manchester Airport required 2 more units, 1 was obtained by Northern lending a 170 for Leeds-Huddersfield stopper.

Forgive me if I'm being dull but doesn't the interworking of Newcastle and Middlesbrough trains at the airport only require one extra unit?

 

[Bikeman78]

The plan is to cover the coast to coast route first, releasing 185’s

There will be a requirement for 2 class 185’s at the very least to cover the new WCML diagrams.

We are also a class 350 short due to collision damage and that has to go to Germany for repairs after hitting horses at 110mph.

Is there any scope to hire a 350 from WMT? A few years ago some 350/3 were hired by Transpennine.

 

[Andyh82]

Forgive me if I'm being dull but doesn't the interworking of Newcastle and Middlesbrough trains at the airport only require one extra unit?

I was thinking the same. One unit due to the Man Air changes, one unit due to splitting the stopper, which has been covered by a Northern 170 operating one diagram.

Whether they have just reduced the number of spares or have axed a diagram that was only used for doubling up others isn’t known.

 

[Chester1]

The plan is to cover the coast to coast route first, releasing 185’s

There will be a requirement for 2 class 185’s at the very least to cover the new WCML diagrams.

We are also a class 350 short due to collision damage and that has to go to Germany for repairs after hitting horses at 110mph.

If three are used on the WCML, wouldn't that still leave three unaccounted for? I guess intially any spare will used to double Liverpool-Newcastle services and by the time 802s start the enter service it will be close to when 185s start leaving at the end of the year. It sounds like TPE are only expecting to have 7 Mark V sets and 7 x 802 in service before the December timetable change?!

Forgive me if I'm being dull but doesn't the interworking of Newcastle and Middlesbrough trains at the airport only require one extra unit?

I was thinking the same. One unit due to the Man Air changes, one unit due to splitting the stopper, which has been covered by a Northern 170 operating one diagram.

Whether they have just reduced the number of spares or have axed a diagram that was only used for doubling up others isn’t known.

Sorry yes, its 1 unit.

 

[Greybeard33]

From the first full working week of 2019, it appears that the December timetable change has improved TPE North performance substantially. Mon-Fri PPM was above 80% every day and cancellations/very late never exceeded 5%. See http://trains.im/ppmhistorical/TP/97.

From skimming through RTT for Manchester Airport, some off-peak TPE North services even arrived early, although clearly the Castlefield Corridor is still problematic in the peaks, and the 0836 arrival from Scarborough was late every day.

The 40 minute layovers at the Airport, achieved by interworking the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services, have pretty much eliminated knock-on delays to the return workings. Only a couple of services all week were turned back short at Victoria or Piccadilly, due to major disruption in each case. Two other westbound services, on different days, were diverted via Guide Bridge, skipping Victoria and Oxford Road, then reversed at Piccadilly and continued to the Airport.

A new issue is occasional delays on the approach to the Airport, even when a service has left Piccadilly on time. These are due to TPE North 185s now occupying two platform berths for two 10 minute periods in every hour and one berth for the two intervening 20 minute periods. Before interworking it was just one berth for two 10 minute periods in the hour. With a total of 10tph (4 TPE, 5 Northern and 1 TfW) sharing the four Airport platforms, any delays to departures can now mean that arriving services have to wait for a platform to become available - at worst a queue develops.

 

[northernchris]

From skimming through RTT for Manchester Airport, some off-peak TPE North services even arrived early, although clearly the Castlefield Corridor is still problematic in the peaks, and the 0836 arrival from Scarborough was late every day

This would suggest that shorter turnarounds could be achievable if / when the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services return to being standalone.

 

[Greybeard33]

This would suggest that shorter turnarounds could be achievable if / when the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services return to being standalone.

I don't think so. Looking for example at 10 January, which was not a particularly bad day, 16 Airport-bound TPE North services were 5 or more minutes late at Piccadilly, of which 6 were 10 or more minutes late. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...0/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=TP With a reversion to 10 minute turnrounds, they would have returned to the Castlefield Corridor still late, or would have been terminated short at Piccadilly. This would have caused delays through the corridor and core to escalate, as used to happen before the December timetable change.