Transpennine Improvements?

[tbtc]

Some direct services to Manchester Airport could do just that, go direct via Guide Bridge and Denton, miss out Picc completely, that would mean less congestion at Picc and a much quicer service from the East to the Airport. Or is this just to simple and logical to be considered.

Is there a way of getting there from Stockport?

 

[Blindtraveler]

hst's would, in 6 or 7 car formation be fantastic on Scotland-manchester. There is need and infrastructure for 125mph traction there and as an example EDB-CAR on a 221 is 1 hr 10 mins, on a 185 its anything between 1hr 20 and 25 plus no tilt, overcrouding and a few other moans. You really appreciate what a voyager can do on a run like that. The best transpenine improvement to me would be to remove Scotland-manchesters from them and iether run it as a joint service between FSR and Northern using iether HSTs or 180s, a similar arangement to the Glasgow to Newcastle run, give it back to West Coast or let a new, micro franchise which mite be attractive to smaller opperaters. Alternatively, take it away, dont replace it and i'll bet within seconds of announcing the termination of the runs an open access opperater or 4 will be ringing the DFT with grand plans and requests for use of 180s.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Is there a way of getting there from Stockport?

Nope, the Manchester Airport (Styal) line joins well north of Stockport, you can just get over to Longsight yard, the only way is northwards to Piccadilly station, there is no other way to get to Stockport/Sheffield etc except via the station.

Just a word of note - Hull-Manchester: If it goes via Sheffield (6-cars to Donny etc, as said before) = No Hull-Leeds trains

 

[Sapphire Blue]

So we've had posters saying bypass Leeds, via Castleford to York, and now someone saying bypass Picc, to go direct to the airport. (Yes Bomber, its simple all right)

Do you ever travel on this route?

What is needed is more capacity between Leeds and Manchester city.

Not faster trains (certainly not HSTs), not more trains(creating pathing problems) and certainly not trains bypassing the two major centres: perlease!

(Sorry but I think shouting is justified now)

WHAT IS REQUIRED ARE BIGGER TRAINS BETWEEN MANCHESTER AND LEEDS VIA HUDDERSFIELD.

 

[markydh]

hst's would, in 6 or 7 car formation be fantastic on Scotland-manchester. There is need and infrastructure for 125mph traction there and as an example EDB-CAR on a 221 is 1 hr 10 mins, on a 185 its anything between 1hr 20 and 25 plus no tilt, overcrouding and a few other moans. You really appreciate what a voyager can do on a run like that. The best transpenine improvement to me would be to remove Scotland-manchesters from them and iether run it as a joint service between FSR and Northern using iether HSTs or 180s, a similar arangement to the Glasgow to Newcastle run, give it back to West Coast or let a new, micro franchise which mite be attractive to smaller opperaters. Alternatively, take it away, dont replace it and i'll bet within seconds of announcing the termination of the runs an open access opperater or 4 will be ringing the DFT with grand plans and requests for use of 180s.

Neither HSTs or 180s tilt. HSTs in particular are much slower is acceleration. Other than capacity improvements, neither train would offer any kind of time saving (and might indeed take longer) even on the Manchester - Scotland services. Dead horse not worth flogging I'm afraid.

 

[WillPS]

Reading this forum you'd think that displaced HSTs and loco-hauled Mk2/3s are the answer to all problems... simply, they're not! Their acceleration is poor which coupled with their increased dwell times (carriage end slam-doors) would cause all sorts of problems (no doubt jam up 13/14 at Piccadilly even further, for one example off the top of my head).

Where next for the HELLFIRE HSTs? The Robin Hood Line? The Stourbridge branch?

 

[ainsworth74]

Where next for the HELLFIRE HSTs? The Robin Hood Line? The Stourbridge branch?

Damn it I'm telling you Darlington to Saltburn line! With a full restaurant service throughout the 50minute journey! There is demand I'm telling you, remember if you build it they will come!

 

[umontu]

Some direct services to Manchester Airport could do just that, go direct via Guide Bridge and Denton, miss out Picc completely, that would mean less congestion at Picc and a much quicer service from the East to the Airport. Or is this just to simple and logical to be considered.

Then the usage would fall, most people use that service (atleast from my experience.) to get off at Piccadily.

 

[Blindtraveler]

wasnt actually saying we need tilt and dont nesesarilly think the hst is an answer iether but certainly more capacity and 125mph running on scottish runs would be good yes point taken re hsts being answer everywhere, or not but it doesnt hide the fact that opperators, particularly open access are going to do the required RVA work, refurb the power cars and keep them going until the government says stop.

 

[Nym]

- Curtail South TPE to Piccadilly, thus removing one set from this route. Rejig the return journey to make it run earlier from Cleethorpes, thus having a reasonable turn-round time at Piccadilly.
- Swap the Middlesbrough/Newcastle services around, ie xx27 to Middlesbrough, xx57 to Newcastle. Keep the Middlesbrough service going to Airport, cut the Newcastle one.
- Extend this new Newcastle service to/from Liverpool, thus creating an extra Liverpool -Manchester express service (which Northern RUS recognises as needed) and opening up the well used links that already exist.
Thoughts?

The last two can't be done within the current diagramming, and wouldn't make too much sense, the unit off middlesbrough goes to newcastle on the return journey, and vice versa, and provides half hourly MIA - LDS - YRK services. Would be an ideal one to diagram as 5 or 6 car units perminatly though...

 

[MCR247]

wasnt actually saying we need tilt and dont nesesarilly think the hst is an answer iether but certainly more capacity and 125mph running on scottish runs would be good yes point taken re hsts being answer everywhere, or not but it doesnt hide the fact that opperators, particularly open access are going to do the required RVA work, refurb the power cars and keep them going until the government says stop.

WCMLs 125 scetions are mostly (if not wholly) 125 EPS only, so HSTs wouldn't get up to 125 anyway, so there goes all HST arguments

 

[cuccir]

So we've had posters saying bypass Leeds, via Castleford to York, and now someone saying bypass Picc, to go direct to the airport. (Yes Bomber, its simple all right)

Do you ever travel on this route?

What is needed is more capacity between Leeds and Manchester city.

Not faster trains (certainly not HSTs), not more trains(creating pathing problems) and certainly not trains bypassing the two major centres: perlease!

(Sorry but I think shouting is justified now)

WHAT IS REQUIRED ARE BIGGER TRAINS BETWEEN MANCHESTER AND LEEDS VIA HUDDERSFIELD.

Without the shouting, this. It's where the congestion and demand are

 

[CNX]

It's shame TPE never got what they wanted (and were initially promised) which was 60x 4 car 185s that would have dealt with all but the worst of the overcrowding I would have thought. Instead they got 51x 3 car 185s and 9x 2 car 170s and if that wasn't enough also got to run Manchester to Scotland services with no extra stock. It's not surprising that most of TPEs routes are overcrowded as a consequence.

Has TPX ever made a case to make their 185's up to 4 cars with a new build of unpowered trailer centre cars, standard class only, same layout as the present centre cars? With 750 HP apiece under the floorboards of the other 3, 2250HP woud be more than adequate for a train weighing about 190 tonnes, assuming the trailer's weighed in at about 35. 185's are grossly overpowered, and piddle around regularly on 2 engines as part of TPX's fuel saving drive. Trailer cars would cost far less to build, and weigh less too. Its not rocket science.

 

[WatcherZero]

Has TPX ever made a case to make their 185's up to 4 cars with a new build of unpowered trailer centre cars, standard class only, same layout as the present centre cars? With 750 HP apiece under the floorboards of the other 3, 2250HP woud be more than adequate for a train weighing about 190 tonnes, assuming the trailer's weighed in at about 35. 185's are grossly overpowered, and piddle around regularly on 2 engines as part of TPX's fuel saving drive. Trailer cars would cost far less to build, and weigh less too. Its not rocket science.

Yes the government in Dec 2008 tendered a contract to add a 4th carriage to the 185's however in July 2009 it was cancelled when they decided to do the Lancashire Triangle electrification and cascade the 185's to less busy routes.

Thats the sort of thing you might expect to see going foward on franchise renewal with a bidder offering it as a low cost capacity improvement with the cost recouped over the franchise length. I believe the next franchisee will be taking over in 2012 so we may see something similar to that idea.

 

[CNX]

Yes the government in Dec 2008 tendered a contract to add a 4th carriage to the 185's however in July 2009 it was cancelled when they decided to do the Lancashire Triangle electrification and cascade the 185's to less busy routes.

Thats the sort of thing you might expect to see going foward on franchise renewal with a bidder offering it as a low cost capacity improvement with the cost recouped over the franchise length. I believe the next franchisee will be taking over in 2012 so we may see something similar to that idea.

Thanks for the info.

 

[tbtc]

Where next for the HELLFIRE HSTs? The Robin Hood Line? The Stourbridge branch?

Cardiff Bay branch. Simple. You get on the HST in Coach A, you walk through the train and get off in Coach H; the train doesn't need to accelerate, you don't need to worry about linespeeds etc...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So we've had posters saying bypass Leeds, via Castleford to York, and now someone saying bypass Picc, to go direct to the airport. (Yes Bomber, its simple all right)

Do you ever travel on this route?

What is needed is more capacity between Leeds and Manchester city.

Not faster trains (certainly not HSTs), not more trains(creating pathing problems) and certainly not trains bypassing the two major centres: perlease!

(Sorry but I think shouting is justified now)

WHAT IS REQUIRED ARE BIGGER TRAINS BETWEEN MANCHESTER AND LEEDS VIA HUDDERSFIELD.

I only mention going via Castleford as an example of how capacity can be improved without needing paths at Leeds. Taking the Manchester - York traffic away from Leeds would free up some seats for Manchester - Leeds passengers. Not ideal, but I gave it as an example of the kind of thinking we'll need to free up new paths/ seats.

Adding a fourth car to the 185s seems the simple answer, but doesn't look like that'll happen. All we'll get will be the fifteen units "saved" from the Lancashire electrification, which will presumably be used for portion working between Manchester and Leeds (?)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

hst's would, in 6 or 7 car formation be fantastic on Scotland-manchester

It'll be electrified in a few years though

 

[Invincibles]

I think the new line through the pennines is not a completely stupid one, but then I think HS should have been routed from the stratford area through the "boring bit" of the ECML and in through north Nottinghamshire, Sheffield Victoria and Penistone onto the Woodhead (with associated closure of the local service from Hadfield in to Manchester - Hadfield could retain a looped stop at a new station)

The resultant capacity for high speed trains through Woodhead, and a triangle to take trains north to Leeds (approaching from the south west by whichever route was then thought best) would create good opportunities.

All transpennine services would then be split between Victoria and the Chat Moss and Piccadilly and the Airport (where they would share the slows alongside the fasts lines designated for HS)

Without that sort of improvement then loops between Greenfield and Diggle that were more comprehensively used by stoppers (Diggle station is a possibility to become one) with timetabled overtakes would clear some paths as would 4 tracking to guide bridge.

Stock to operate the paths is hard to find but I would like to see the HST cascades release one or two voyagers for the routes to Scotland and the resulting allocation of 185s might then be better.

Further as the electrification comes on stream there would be a chance for a better allocation of the freed units to put 158s back on the stopper TPEs (Manchester -> Stalybridge -> Huddersfield -> Dewsbury -> Leeds) while the 185s could become exclusively Manchester -> Huddersfield -> Leeds.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Short term though, assuming that there is no electrification imminent, I'd like to do the following...

- Curtail South TPE to Piccadilly, thus removing one set from this route. Rejig the return journey to make it run earlier from Cleethorpes, thus having a reasonable turn-round time at Piccadilly.

Thoughts?

Would this not deprive all prospective air travellers from Scunthorpe, Doncaster and Sheffield of a DIRECT link that now exists to Manchester Airport?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Would this not deprive all prospective air travellers from Scunthorpe, Doncaster and Sheffield of a DIRECT link that now exists to Manchester Airport?

Yes, but how many people actually use the link from Scunny, Donny and Sheffield to the Airport? If you get a good connection at Picc then there's no real need for a direct link when it could benefit services overall should it be scrapped!

 

[Nym]

Or run down the CLC to Liverpool Lime Street in place of the current service from Leeds when it gets sent via Victoria?

 

[tbtc]

Would this not deprive all prospective air travellers from Scunthorpe, Doncaster and Sheffield of a DIRECT link that now exists to Manchester Airport?

Why are you bringing up a thread from over three months ago?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why are you bringing up a thread from over three months ago?

In order to give an answer to the point that was raised about the termination of the First TPE service from Cleethorpes at Manchester Piccadilly, which would have meant the lack of a DIRECT rail service to Manchester Airport to passengers currently enjoying it from Scunthorpe, Doncaster and Sheffield. As far as I could see, there had been no answer made to that point.

Edit: the rest of this message has been removed

 

[WatcherZero]

What drives me nuts on this forum is old threads being automatically locked, you have a topic with dozens of pages of discussions and information and if no one posts for long enough its locked and when the same subject somes up again or is in the news you have to start a new one.

I admit to bumping old threads from time to time to stop them being locked. The alternative is being buried in hundreds of threads less than a page long.

 

[yorkie]

Why are you bringing up a thread from over three months ago?

It's a difficult one. While it is true we don't generally like old threads being 'bumped' there can be exceptions when someone has something significant to add. If anyone spots a thread that has been bumped and you feel it shouldn't have been, I would suggest you contact a moderator (preferably one who is online at the time) rather than post this question which is unlikely to have a constructive outcome.

We do have a reporting system for reporting posts, although I don't think it applies in this case.

On the other hand, your post did not deserved to be SHOUTED at in response...

...Are you following me all over the forum, passing judgement as you go, with less than veiled sarcasm....

I don't think this is appropriate for this topic. If you really want to ask tbtc this question, it should go as a (more polite) PM, surely? However if you have a problem with any forum member then you need to contact us.

I appeal to the moderators to resolve this matter once and for all and if they want me to leave the forum, I will do so. But it will be their decision...NOT YOURS!!!

Appeals to moderators can only be made by either:
- Reporting a post; (all moderators get alerted)
- Using the Contact us form (for non-urgent matters);
- Contacting a moderator directly (also, if it's not time-critical as that moderator may not be online)

What drives me nuts on this forum is old threads being automatically locked....

If you have feedback for us, please use the Contact us link at the bottom of every forum page (or send one of us a PM)

 

[MCR247]

Quote removed

Woah, calm down. It wasn't anything personal was it, unless I'm missing something? I think he is just saying what he'd say to anyone who'd done the same thing :?

EDIT: Didn't see Yorkies post, I left the browser open while I went downstairs for a bit

 

[burty76]

Personally speaking I dont think it needs many improvements, apart from extra stock of course.
I would however introduce the following :

Newcastle - York - Leeds - Hudds - Victoria - Liverpool (hourly)
Hull - Leeds - Hudds - Victoria - Liverpool (hourly)
Middlesboro - York - Leeds- - Piccadilly - Airport (hourly)
Scarborough - York - Leeds - Piccadilly - Airport (hourly)

The Victoria to Liverpool fast trains would replace the Airport - Liverpool that currently runs via Piccadilly and Earlstown - this would run via Warrington Central.

It would also eliminate the pathing problems from Piccadilly platforms 13/14 to the Stalybridge line.

The Leeds - Victoria journey time would be about 5 mins quicker than the Piccadilly trains, it would open up easier connections to North Manchester and Lancashire, but yet still maintaining a half hourly service to Piccadilly and the Airport.