black and decker boy Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 A snippet in this months Modern Railways is that a deal has been done for Chiltern to take the 9 class 170s from fTPE, probably in phases to allow for refurb, to strengthen their fleet for Oxford via Bicester. There had been a rumour that DfT had told FTPE to not increase fleet size post 350/4, it would appear to be true. As a resident of the Chilterns, this is good for me. As a product of the Pennines, this makes me angry. FTPE will have to internally cascade the 185s to cover these duties which will mean little or no strengthening of the overcrowded services over the Pennines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Equally, FTPE had been publishing that once the Class 350/4 units had been introduced then the other routes would be strengthenedOh dear... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2014 A snippet in this months Modern Railways is that a deal has been done for Chiltern to take the 9 class 170s from fTPE, probably in phases to allow for refurb, to strengthen their fleet for Oxford via Bicester. There had been a rumour that DfT had told FTPE to not increase fleet size post 350/4, it would appear to be true. As a resident of the Chilterns, this is good for me. As a product of the Pennines, this makes me angry. FTPE will have to internally cascade the 185s to cover these duties which will mean little or no strengthening of the overcrowded services over the Pennines. Its hardly that unsurprising to be honest. Despite the fact they like to pretend otherwise the DfT / treasury have to sanction pretty much everything a TOC does, especially when it concerns stock movements. Franchises are let based on a specific number of units and any increase in units usually means there has to be an increase in DfT subsidy (more rolling stock = more money has to be paid out to lease said stock) - hence the desire to keep the number of units down. I can well imagine therefore that Whitehall mandarins have said to FTPE "no you can't hang on to the displaced diesel units - we are spending a bloddy fortune longer electric stock for you which will bump up the subsidy requirement for years to come anyway so there is no way we are going to let you make it go up even further. Its one electric unit in - one diesel unit out. Besides Chiltern need some more stock for this Oxford - Bicester thing they are doing and nobody is building DMUs any more. Now ###### off and don't you dare mention any of this to your passengers if you want any chance of keeping the Franchise next time". Its a fact the industry has had to live with ever since privatisation yet surprisingly few people outside it seem to understand the true nature of DfT 'franchising' and heap all the blame on the TOCs (which is no doubt the intention of Government all along). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45125 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Its hardly that unsurprising to be honest. Despite the fact they like to pretend otherwise the DfT / treasury have to sanction pretty much everything a TOC does, especially when it concerns stock movements. Franchises are let based on a specific number of units and any increase in units usually means there has to be an increase in DfT subsidy (more rolling stock = more money has to be paid out to lease said stock) - hence the desire to keep the number of units down. I can well imagine therefore that Whitehall mandarins have said to FTPE "no you can't hang on to the displaced diesel units - we are spending a bloddy fortune longer electric stock for you which will bump up the subsidy requirement for years to come anyway so there is no way we are going to let you make it go up even further. Its one electric unit in - one diesel unit out. Besides Chiltern need some more stock for this Oxford - Bicester thing they are doing and nobody is building DMUs any more. Now ###### off and don't you dare mention any of this to your passengers if you want any chance of keeping the Franchise next time". Its a fact the industry has had to live with ever since privatisation yet surprisingly few people outside it seem to understand the true nature of DfT 'franchising' and heap all the blame on the TOCs (which is no doubt the intention of Government all along). TPE originally got the 170s to run on lines where the 185s cannot (and still cannot) run at Sprinter speeds. Once agin the DFT being there usual uniformed selves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 TPE originally got the 170s to run on lines where the 185s cannot (and still cannot) run at Sprinter speeds. Once agin the DFT being there usual uniformed selves. No surprises there then unfortunately. I thought these were to be kept for additional strengthening for the TPE East services too, but the call of the Chilterns beckons for them and a return to the south (again!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Totally agree the DFT are not at all the right organisation to actualy run our railways they are the Treasury in another form but I don't think things will change anytime soon.TOC,s should be allowed to run theier franchises without the interference of the Sir Humphrey,s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 Totally agree the DFT are not at all the right organisation to actualy run our railways they are the Treasury in another form but I don't think things will change anytime soon.TOC,s should be allowed to run theier franchises without the interference of the Sir Humphrey,s. I agree absolutely and it is here we see one of, if not the, worst results of privytisation in it s present form. The BRB kept the Ministry in check and, in most cases. 'sensibilised' what came out of Marsham St and the Palace of westminster into something which most of the time represented the best interests of the network and - in all probability - passengers too. However it is also worth mentioning that for at least the later few years of BR the mandarins of Marsham St were also pretty much on BR's side and left teh professional stuff to the professionals and acted as a buffer between them and The Treasury. In the original privytisation structure The Franchising Director effectively took over much of the BRB role and still (but perhaps to a slightly lesser extent?) kept the mandarins and politicos locked away in their private domains. It can I think now be clearly seen in retrospect that subsequent political tampering which led to the abolition of the original Franchising Director role and subsuming it into the Strategic Rail Authority not only started to give Govt (i.e. DaftT) more direct control but in fact put far more power into the often unknowing and lacking in understanding hands. The final straw on this particular path to misplaced control was the abolition of the SRA and sitting DafT firmly in control, while in turn not creating in the minds of the mandarins the need to separate the management of an industry from political shilly-shallying and 'flavour of the month' strategic thinking. Thus far too much Civil Service style thinking and, probably, political influence, has come to be involved at the strategic level and decisions are not so much being made in the light of the best thing for the industry. Privatisation of the railways in Britain has alas been littered with far too much political interference and this has of course increased to an extent where it is now probably in reality considerably greater - certainly in terms of passenger train operation - than it was when BR existed as a nationalised industry. Perversely in that respect it really is privytisation,. Oddly the original great disaster of privatising Railtrack, and haemorrahging money from the industry as a result, has over the same period taken a turn for the better in investment and maintenance terms with the creation of Network Rail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 F*cking ridiculous. DafT do not have a clue whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if DafT sheepishly give in to the uproar in the North and hire-in a few loco-hauled sets for TPE. We've already had this in 2007 when they left FGW seriously short of units and placed 12 142's from Northern and 4 153's in storage as they took all FGW's units away and left them with nowhere near enough to run the timetable, let alone enough capacity. It's only getting to the stage now after an influx of 22 150's and a hire-in 158 that FGW have got back to the numbers they should have had in the first place - bearing in mind they had two loco-hauled sets, 4 ATW 150's and 12 142's to plug the gap. A similar thing will be done for TPE, I'd be willing to bet money on, costing more than the leasing costs of the 170's to boot I bet. Already the Manchester-Leeds corridor is rammed - a 5tph isn't the answer, they should lengthen the existing services. Yet more meddling from the DfT which simply will not work - will they ever learn? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 This does tend to open up new questions, answers and possibilities however. One such is the on-going electrification schemes which will release DMUs both sides of the borders, so in theory we could have the chance that ScotRail get theirs in and order some new stock or London Midland could release some of theirs upon electrification of the Chase line and arrival of the 350/3s, allowing the chances of 3 Car 170s to be released, and there will also be the TPE Schemes which could mean TPE get's some of the first use of these bizarre DfT ordered 387s (not that I'm a fan of them and rather prefer the idea of standardising stock / manufacturers with each franchise). At least however, there seems to be some sense applied to the plan though in the form of Chiltern & TPE working together - The lease of the 9 170/3s will transfer to Chiltern when the TPE franchise is due to end (these 170s were due to stay on First Groups own back again as they chose to keep them as long as they could fund / find use for them in the form of the strengthening and 5th TPE), They will still transfer to Chiltern but Chiltern will then sublease the units back to FTPE until FTPE is ready to release them and Chiltern ready to refurbish and make use of them. So actually they will stay with TPE until next year at the earliest. Time will tell the rest - The way the DfT seems to work is like a board game really, you have to aim to read the opponents mind whilst playing the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I understand that the reason (from someone who works in DfT I hasten to add) the 170's are going to Chiltern is because with the state of the franchising at the moment, DfT would not confirm they'd be funding the 170's in the new franchise (post-2015) as they hadn't set the terms or the subsidy for the new franchise, and so couldn't extend the lease - in swoop Chiltern who confirm the lease with the ROSCO at the end of the current TPE franchise. That's what I understand from the post on WNXX anyway. In which case, if true, it looks like Chiltern actually f*cked TPE over. It'd be interesting to know the full facts surrounding this. Still, means a nice little reduction in subsidy paid out for the DfT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher125 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 In which case, if true, it looks like Chiltern actually f*cked TPE over. It'd be interesting to know the full facts surrounding this. Still, means a nice little reduction in subsidy paid out for the DfT. As pointed out however Chiltern will lease units back to FTPE, so it's not as bad as initially feared. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 As pointed out however Chiltern will lease units back to FTPE, so it's not as bad as initially feared. Chris Yeah I know mate, but TPE need the extra capacity more than Chiltern do! Otherwise it wouldn't be such a step-backwards. It's a shame GOBLIN electrification can't be done really quickly to release the 172's to Chiltern instead! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 As pointed out however Chiltern will lease units back to FTPE, so it's not as bad as initially feared. Chris Only for a few months. By Mid 2015, all 9 will be with Chiltern as the Oxford service will have started. TPE will then have nothing extra. IIRC the next phase of wiring on TPE is still several years away and there are no EMUs confirmed for it (DfT masterplan may or may not have this covered if they have one that is). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted March 3, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2014 The news has filtered through to Manchester today, http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/campaigners-fury-nine-transpennine-express-6768197. It was also on the local TV news tonight. As far as the TPE routes are concerned overcrowding is now at dangerous levels and puntuality is suffering because of the length of time it takes to get people off and on the train at Leeds, Huddersfield etc. We recently travelled from York to Manchester in the afternoon, deliberately pre-rush hour so we thought. The train was crammed from Leeds to Manchester with nearly 50 people standing in our coach alone. When we arrived at Manchester the train to the northeast from the next platform was also full and standing, probably near twice as many passengers as seats. The situation is not unique to TPE in our area, Northern is just as bad on some lines, with Marple trains being some of the worst. I have seen 200 passengers on a two car Pacer during the evening peak, not very comfortable, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold SHMD Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 Over the last twelve months of commuting into Manchester from Stalybridge and back, and always at peak time, some trains have been appallingly overcrowded. Frequently, people are left behind and not just the frail. The guards have been very informative with apologies and 1st class being frequently de-classified, plus stating the obvious that the Trolley Service was going no were until at least after Leeds. (Sometimes the Trollies cant even get on board!) For the last several months these announcements have also been informing us that new carriages and other capacity improvements were imminent (within twelve months or so). Now there's no point in getting into the argument “my lines more crowded than your line” but I wonder how these announcements are going to reflect this new reality? Kev. (KLM/Air France would just blatantly call them improvements!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 surely the answer to overcrowding and unit displacement would be some sort of trans pennine route using the chiltern units, possibly originating in marylebone and maybe running up through aylesbury maybe head towards sheffield and end in manchester piccadilly, maybe go via the old woodhead route......... ........oh hang on!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Yeah I know mate, but TPE need the extra capacity more than Chiltern do! Not knocking the TPX need, but from Chiltern's point of view it would be hard for them to run the new services over the new route with no trains... It's a shame GOBLIN electrification can't be done really quickly to release the 172's to Chiltern instead! They'd need a quick shopping to add a loo before being redeployed (although it's supposed to be "easy" to retrofit AIUI?) - if you're going down that road then doing Uckfield might be a good bet as well, it'd free up a fair sized chunk of modern DMU capacity... I think TPX still ends up with a net fleet gain on pure numbers, (+40 EMU cars, -18 DMU cars) - but nowhere near what it expected to see, and without much difference in set numbers there won't be much chance of increasing capacity on most trains off-wire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not knocking the TPX need, but from Chiltern's point of view it would be hard for them to run the new services over the new route with no trains... They'd need a quick shopping to add a loo before being redeployed (although it's supposed to be "easy" to retrofit AIUI?) - if you're going down that road then doing Uckfield might be a good bet as well, it'd free up a fair sized chunk of modern DMU capacity... I think TPX still ends up with a net fleet gain on pure numbers, (+40 EMU cars, -18 DMU cars) - but nowhere near what it expected to see, and without much difference in set numbers there won't be much chance of increasing capacity on most trains off-wire. Indeed, but it could be argued that as DB/Chiltern have a stockpile of Mark 3's that DfT could have helped funding buying some more stored ones from Long Marston so Chiltern left the 170's well alone... As for the 172's, not the end of the world with no bog. Stick 'em on Gerrards Cross services, better acceleration over the 165's should also improve punctuality and possibly shave a minute or two off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 What are TPE using the 172's for? I lived in York until a couple of years back and used the services - they were pretty overcrowded then and I note from above that it is probably worse, but I do not recollect seeing 172's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 F*cking ridiculous. DafT do not have a clue whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if DafT sheepishly give in to the uproar in the North and hire-in a few loco-hauled sets for TPE. We've already had this in 2007 when they left FGW seriously short of units and placed 12 142's from Northern and 4 153's in storage as they took all FGW's units away and left them with nowhere near enough to run the timetable, let alone enough capacity. It's only getting to the stage now after an influx of 22 150's and a hire-in 158 that FGW have got back to the numbers they should have had in the first place - bearing in mind they had two loco-hauled sets, 4 ATW 150's and 12 142's to plug the gap. A similar thing will be done for TPE, I'd be willing to bet money on, costing more than the leasing costs of the 170's to boot I bet. Already the Manchester-Leeds corridor is rammed - a 5tph isn't the answer, they should lengthen the existing services. Yet more meddling from the DfT which simply will not work - will they ever learn? maybe run a 47 and eight mk 2ds should be plaenty of room oh wait a Minuit thats what they used to do maybe the same with an hst set ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 What are TPE using the 172's for? I lived in York until a couple of years back and used the services - they were pretty overcrowded then and I note from above that it is probably worse, but I do not recollect seeing 172's. They aren't - TPE have got some 170s, used predominantly on Hull services and some Cleethorpes ones. It's these 170s that are the subject of the OP. The 172s mentioned later are on the Barking-Gospel Oak, and after that line is electrified, they may end up at Chiltern Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Reading through the posts it seems a general concenus that Northern is overcrowded on many services and that DAFT have no interest in helping to control this no change there.Thia franchise is just as important as a southern one and should be treated so,the cities in this region are growing and need services that reflect this.DAFT in thier lair in Whitehall are totally removed from the real world so will never serve the public and TOC,s as long as they carry on as of now.(pun to carry on films intended) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 On this evenings local (NW) TV news, it was said TPE would replace the 9 trains with trains from Northern Rail, who would then themselves have a stock shortage. Yipee - Nodding Donkeys every 15 mins Manchester to Leeds !! Then they showed the packed roads around Manchester, showing the A580 (East Lancs Rd) which soon will loose a lane to the Leigh - Manchester Guided Busway - which will not be guided on this section !!!!!!!!!!!! The lunatics are running the asylum. Edited - just found the BBC link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03wwvh5/North_West_Tonight_03_03_2014/ Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 On this evenings local (NW) TV news, it was said TPE would replace the 9 trains with trains from Northern Rail, who would then themselves have a stock shortage. Yipee - Nodding Donkeys every 15 mins Manchester to Leeds !! I know the Northern mafia don't seem to like to let it be known that not every train up there is a pacer! Given the speed and quality requirements, that will most likely mean 9x 158s moving from Northern to TPX. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Indeed, but it could be argued that as DB/Chiltern have a stockpile of Mark 3's that DfT could have helped funding buying some more stored ones from Long Marston so Chiltern left the 170's well alone... By the same token then, there should be Mk3s should a worst case scenario come to pass... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.