Great Western Coffee Shop

Modern Railways reports that the 9 Class 170 operated by TPE are moving to Chiltern to provide stock for the Oxford to London service.

This surprises me, as

a) previously it's been reported that TPE would be keeping all their existing stock to strengthen their services, so this will be an unwelcome announcement in the north

b) I thought that one of the reasons why Chiltern were switching to more loco-hauled sets was to provide capacity for the new service

c) given the national shortage of dmus, it seems odd that one operator has bagged 9 relatively nice units, when others are crying out for more stock. Accusations of DfT favouring the south will no doubt follow, particularly given some of the noises currently being made about the next Northern franchise (which appears to be in danger of repeating the mistakes of the last "no growth" Northern franchise.)

This was 1st suggested back in novermber 2013.
There was a suggestion that Chiltern could use the class 170's to release up some class 165's for use elsewhere.

I am sure FGW would love to have a couple extra class 165's perhaps some could make their way westwards or free up 150001 & 150002 to allow them to be used around Bristol.

Anyway I think we will be seeing  a lot more dmu casades. As for these 9 units I wonder what TPE are going to use to replace them

Class 350's?

Yes, but the original plan was that the units displaced by the Class 350s would be used to strengthen existing TPE services and add an additional tph between Manchester and Leeds. 

They did - 4 silver sets now in use - but the stock displaced is already in use coping with additional pax since that plan was envisaged. So they still need more to provide units for Oxford. As this is a new service, they'll want Clubman 168s on the Oxford services.

What's the top speed of these 170s? And the seating layout? Tables?

To displace Clubmans, they'll need to be capable of 100mph....

100mph isn't it? The 168 was basically the forerunner of the 170 wasn't it? But compatible for multiple working with 165/166 rather than with the Sprinter 15x family, as is I believe to be the case with the 170s.

The 172s Chiltern has are definitely 100mph - just checking the whole fleet of 17xs are the same.

And what about seating layouts?

Yes, all Turbostars (168/170/171/172) have a top speed of 100mph.

8 of the 9 class 170s used by TPE started life new with SWT. They had a 1st class compartment behind each cab, but TPE reseated one compartment to standard class when they took them on. 1 universal toilet and 1 standard toilet along with a mixture of airline and bay seating in 2+2 layout (1+2 in 1st).

Although as said above, 170s are not compatible with 165s, 168s or 172s, Poterbrook believe the modification to change capability us straight forward. A few years ago now, but Porterbrook also coverted a SWT 170 to become a 171 for Southern.

The conversion from a 170 to 171 would be less straight forward as it actually involves changing the coupler from a BSI type coupler to a Dellner type coupler. From what I understand making the FTPE 170s compatible with the Chiltern fleet would just be a minor modification. I believe the reason that Chiltern appears to have acquired these 170s is not so much a DfT decision, but more the result of DfT indecision. With the FTPE franchise nearing its end and with a direct award yet to be negotiated for the next franchise FTPE have not been allowed to renew leases on their stock beyond the end of their current franchise. Chiltern has simply taken up the lease on the 170s at the end of the current deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26438550

So as might be expected this is starting to get prominent negative coverage in the north. Apparently it was an item on the local news last night.

Here's an interesting quote "But the Department for Transport (DfT) said replacement trains would be leased so that services can continue.". Given the lack of dmus available for the next couple of years, I suspect most of the rolling stock displaced by the second phase of the NW Electrification will end up, directly or indirectly, backfilling for the Class 170s.

In which case, they won't be available for anywhere else. It does seem odd that previously the DfT has been all over rolling stock reallocations, which is probably not a bad thing given the need to identify the most appropriate uses for such a scarce resource. And yet here, it seems as though they've stood back and let Chiltern snaffle the units. Or they've actually been complicit in the deal, but are choosing to shrug their shoulders and say "nothing to do with us, guv".

Roll on Dec 2016 when the dmu shortage should well and truly be over with at least 3 electrification schemes completing.

Except that there's nothing (to my knowledge, except maybe ScotRail's projects) that will release regional express stock (eg. class 158s) for the likes of Cardiff - Portsmouth

Interesting how at it's inception Chiltern had a nice uniform fleet of Class 165s, but after this cascade will find itself with a rather higgledy piggledy mess of Class 165s, Class 168s, Class 170s, Class 172s, Mk 3 Carriages, Class 67s, DVTs, and (probably eventually) Class 68s!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSY0hRZbKQ&feature=share&list=UUka0DcTIv4FzSOwj32jQB-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSY0hRZbKQ&feature=share&list=UUka0DcTIv4FzSOwj32jQB-Q)


That's my bet. DfT staffer regularly told the FGW Customer Panel that "the DfT don't micro-manage the stock leasing" - seriously! Since I challenged him on this, he hasn't returned, even though the DfT get a standing invitation....


I have it on good authority (DM me if you want to know more) that Chiltern have their name on some 68s. But that is probably in place of the rotten 67s.

Oh, and I wonder *where* Chiltern are going to depot these 173s?....:-o

I only read that quickly, and to begin with I thought you said the DfT got a standing ovation  ;D

From what I've seen elsewhere this is very much the result of DfT incompetence rather than a deliberate decision. It's also worth noting that the interim franchise director at the DfT, Peter Wilkinson, recently criticised the ROSCOs once more, claiming that the rolling stock market was not working. Well this is the rolling stock market in action.

Seems to have captured Jack Straw's imagination as well as he asked a question about this in PMQ's today!

I think the farce involving the fTPE trains just goes to show who is running the "privatised" UK railway network. 

Considering you can't lease trains off your own back without making an application to the DfT the whole situation stinks of incompetence  It is also worrying to think that the current FGW Class 180s could go the same way.

Oops - I forgot their Class 121 'Bubble Cars'.  :)

The situation with TPE is this:

First TPE proposed an order of 56 x 3 car 185s with the option to add 4th cars at a later date if demand increased.  After the SRA got involved this became 51 x 3 car 185s and 9 x 2 car 170s (8 from SWT and 1 from Central) so this looked reasonable until it was decided that to allow the Virgin VHF frequency the Voyagers off Manchester-Scotland would be used for enhancing Holyhead/Chester to London services.  This meant TPE also had to take on Manchester-Scotland services but didn't get any extra stock to run those additional services.

The previous DfT realised TPE were short of stock and proposed they would get an additional 10 x 4 car DMUs, which formed part of the same withdrawn ITT would have allowed new DMUs on Cardiff-Portsmouth and additional DMUs for Northern.  The idea was an additional hourly service between Liverpool and York and more capacity on Scottish services.  The ITT was withdrawn on the basis that electrification was a better alternative so for TPE the 10 x 4 car DMUs became 10 x 4 car 350/4s.  However, this has involved diverting Manchester to Scotland services via Wigan instead of via Bolton meaning there's more pressure on the Northern Rail services on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston corridor.

Starting this May TPE will run an hourly Manchester-Wigan-Scotland services and the existing hourly Manchester Airport to Newcastle service will be replaced by two hourly services: Liverpool-Newcastle via Manchester Victoria and Manchester Airport to York.  This means the 185s and 350s cannot stretch to cover all the TPE services.

Apparently the preferred proposal is now for TPE to get 8 x 158s from Northern in lieu but this has quite a few issues:
1. While Northern are expected to get 319s to use on the Chat Moss route the released DMUs have already been allocated new duties - with the re-opening of the Todmorden curve a Manchester Victoria to Todmorden service should be extended to Blackburn via Burnley, as well as extra capacity in particular on the Bolton corridor which won't have usable electrics until the December 16 timetable change.
2. Northern don't use 158s on any of the North West routes being electrified.
3. The Northern 158s don't have First Class and the interior standard of them is much poorer than the TPE 170s.
4. The 158s are 90mph capable and the TPE timetabling is based on using 100mph capable trains.

Apparently talks over a franchise extension between Northern and DfT aren't going well at the moment so DOR might finish up running the interim franchise.

Apparently Chiltern have asked Porterbrook to convert the 170/3s to 168s and are looking at having a fleet of 28 x 3 car 168s.  There would be a surplus 170 centre car though but I'm sure an operator like Anglia, LM or XC (who have a mix of 2 and 3 car 170s) would happily take that on.

AIUI the only fundamental difference between Chiltern's 'Turbostars' and everyone else's is that the 168 coupling electrical boxes were wired to interface with 165s, whereas most other 170s are wired to work with 15X series units, such as 158s etc.   I expect the 172s Chiltern operate are also wired specifically for their requirements to MU with 165s and 168s.   I doubt it will be a significant modification at all.  There would be no real necessity to renumber them into the 168 series - other than for neatness - they could just as easily be made a new 170 subclass.  After all that's what was done with the 172s...

Paul

As far as I know the Chiltern 172s are wired differently to enable them to couple to the Chiltern fleet. It can't be a major modification as the LM 172s which are wired for coupling to 15x units and 170s are not deemed different enough to warrant a different class number. Renumbering to 168s does seem possible though, the 168/2s are already 170s in all but name and the wiring differences. The 168/0s do look quite different to the later 168s and 170s.

The 168s also have a tripcock fitted which the 170s do not.  According to Wikipedia the 172s cannot operate on the London to Aylesbury Line due to a lack of tripcock, so presumably 170s are also banned from running services on those lines.

The 172s have inside frame bogies, these would clearly be difficult to fit a conventional tripcock to, so it hasn't been done.  There would be no equivalent problem with the 170s, but whether it would be necessary to fir tripcocks would depend on where Chiltern chose to operate them.

Paul

The only issue with 172s running on the Metropolitan line is they can't be the leading unit. Coupled to a 165 or 168 at the front is fine, as only the leading bogie needs to have a trip cock.

Not mentioned so far, but I suspect the TPE 170s will be fitted with ATP too.

So they can run into Marylebone with a 165/168 leading. What happens then though? Could the 172s be shunted out the way without a tripcock?

Yes, no doubt it could be shunted out of the way, or the train could go out via Wycombe.   Clever circular diagrams all day - out via Risborough and back via the Met!  ;D

Graham pretty much sums it up.

The tripcock is only needed to run on the tracks owned by LUL. On Network Rail lines, such as Marylebone station having a tripcock is not important (as TPWS would act like a tripcock (and then there's the ATP too)).

The 172s don't actually have any diagrams via Amersham though. With only 4 of the units it is quite easy to avoid it.

It would be harder once the 173s are introduced, unless the conversion to 168s include the tripcocks.

More interestingly, is where they're going to depot / maintain them as Aylesbury & Wembley are somewhat fll & unexpandable....

170/3s I think?

I suspect it might be relatively straightforward for increased stabling to be provided at Banbury - that would also possibly make sense for services starting and finishing at Oxford, that's if ECS paths are available via the Cherwell Valley.   

I believe the Chiltern route is not going to be an independent line anymore, so whichever option is chosen for the Oxford layout changes there's probably going to be a usable route...

Paul

Stabling isn't really the issue - maintenance is. And yes, 170/3s - sorry.

There's also Oxford itself for stabling, though I agree with ChrisB that maintenance is the key issue - though I'm sure the relevant bods have a plan.

oh they do....I'm hearing rumours....

Conversion of the 170/3s to 168s would have the following advantages:
1. Easier diagramming and easier to swap units between services if one fails or gets stranded due to disruption.
2. Not having to get crews to have to add 170s to their traction cards.
3. Not having to do the paperwork for route clearance for the 170s.

They already have 170s in service, so 2 and 3 are already happening / happened

What 170s do Chiltern have?  Have they loaned 170s off LM, XC, Anglia or Scotrail?  If not then they don't have any, only different types of 168s, some of which are effectively modified 170s.

Really? Chiltern have four 172s in service. Not aware that they have any 170s.

Chiltern have never had any 170s.

And the 168 design came before the 170! Yes, latter 168s have the same front end styling as the 170, but that was due to research Chiltern and Bombardier did once the original batch of 168s entered service that said the public did like them but felt the front end made it look more like a metro train than a distance one (source, The Chiltern Railways Story by Hugh Jones).

Sorry, I meant 17x's....

A superb piece of journalism regarding yesterday's parliamentary debate for your delectation - http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11072014.Minister_s_vow_over_ageing__pacer__trains_running_on_North_East_rail_network/

Cue stuving and his fine toothcomb  ;D

Some fascinating elements

... but no-one knows for sure.   Why "believed"?

... which will leave them with minus nine, as they don't run any locomotives at present

... and how much better would it be with a 150 / 153 / 156?

Can you add to grahame's list, folks?...

In my defence for not noticing, I'll point out that he was formerly minister for transport.

Are suggestions that the new Northern franchise will be required to dispose of all pacer trains slightly worrying. They aren't the best trains on the network, but as the FGW 143s show they can be brought up to a reasonable standard and Porterbrook believes there is a case for making the necessary modifications to them to allow continued operation beyond 2020. The reality is that Pacers are very cheap to lease so it seems to me that they'd be an ideal train to keep some around of to cater for future growth. Considering that we currently have a shortage of DMUs it seems madness to scrap hundreds of DMUs because they have been released by new EMUs. Who knows what will happen in 5 or 10 years time, the Pacers could potentially still have a useful role to play.

It sounds to me like there is a kind of frenzy akin to blood lust developing "up north", driving a desire to kill the spawn of the devil Pacers off.

In such a prevailing mood, one suspects they will have little truck with modification proposals to keep them in service, no matter how reasonable they might appear to seasoned observers such as ourselves.

Or perhaps I've been watching too many horror movies recently...

There are some sections of track where Pacers are restricted to 20mph, where a Sprinter could safely run at 50mph but if there's an extended section of over a few miles where that happens Pacers are kept off the route and it's timetabled to be operated by a 150.  Blackburn to Clitheroe used to have a section like that until the track was upgraded a couple of years ago.

Analysis on Chester-Altrincham-Manchester services by TfGM suggested that replacing 142s with 170s could shave 5 minutes off the journey time (6% of the total journey time) on an all-stops services and apparently the 170s have very poor acceleration compared to the 172s.  The analysis was done before 172s were built so maybe by replacing 142s with 172s you could save 10% of the total journey time.

I'm not 100% sure how TfGM came up with that analysis as AFAIK a 170 has never run along the Chester-Altrincham-Manchester line but a variety of DMUs and locos have past and present from Pacers, Sprinters, 175s, Voyagers, class 31s 57s, 60s and 66s.

The 143s and 144s are a lot better performing than 142s and provide a less rough ride.  The 141s that we exported to Iran have been left to rot in sidings as Iran thought they were life-expired.

If Pacers do get the accessible refurbishment Porterbrook are proposing their capacity will be reduced to around 80 seats per train meaning they'll be unsuitable for 99% of Northern Rail services in single formation, if they don't then legally they should be scrapped no later than 31st December 2019.  It's believed Porterbrook see the Wales & Border franchise as the most likely party to sign a new 10+ year lease for Pacers and without a new 10+ year lease agreed they can't justify doing the high expense of making 143s and 144s accessible.

At present with the Northern franchise it's generally the shorter services that have too many passengers for the Pacers to be used on so they get used on the 60-120 minute services where they cope better with loadings.  Until recently the 90 minute Pacer operated between Southport and Manchester Airport did a section over jointed track - if you had back problems and dared to do that as a return journey you'd have been very brave!

Pacers may have cheap leasing costs but the operating cost of a 3 car 172 is cheaper than the operating cost of a Pacer+153 formation with the 3 car 172 giving you more capacity as well.

So about the same capacity as a 153 currently then, but the accessible refurbishment for a 153 would have an impact on the 153's seating capacity too, and it is generally believed that modifications to a 153, whilst retaining them as single car units, will be uneconomical. If we were to keep pacers there is no reason they'd have to be used as they are now, with much more rolling stock available they could be used more in double formations on quieter services with other DMUs such as 150s displaced to strengthen other services. If electrification continues at the currently proposed pace then we probably won't have a problem of a shortage of DMUs. If however electrification grinds to a halt in CP6 or CP7 with continued growth in demand we could be back to the current situation. With it now looking increasingly likely that we won't see a new order for DMUs it just seems to me to be short sighted to scrap hundreds of DMUs which are currently in service, at least until the future of the railway network becomes clearer. If the government were to announce that Pacers were to be scrapped with a commitment to a rolling electrification project I wouldn't see a problem, but at the moment we don't have that certainty as to what the future holds.

They probably wouldn't be scrapped initially.  In total 17 x 142s had already been withdrawn from the Northern franchise - 12 following the arrival of more Sprinters as a result of the introduction of 185s to the rail network and 5 due to the Oldham-Manchester line being converted to Metrolink.  However, these 17 trains have all been reintroduced to the Northern franchise as a result of passenger growth, 12 of them had a holiday with First Great Western between Northern withdrawing them and taking them on again.

I'd be surprised if any Pacers are withdrawn before December 2018, which is when Manchester-York is expected to have usable electrics.  The DMUs released by North West and Thames Valley electrification will probably all be needed for extra capacity.

It would appear that the Transport Secretary himself is not immune from the odd identity crisis... - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/transport-minister-patrick-mclaughlin-says-6831970

Direct award for Northern announced until February 2016.

two weeks too late, some might say

DfT announcement link - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deal-for-rail-in-the-north

5 PTEs have co-signed the deal, it mentions.

And the Pacers are here to stay^

Voith of Heidenheim has just released the following statement (which is my translation of the German original):

Quote
Angel Trains, one of the UK's leading leasing companies for rail vehicles, has commissioned Voith with the delivery of 188 new final drives and cardan shafts for their Class 142 fleet. Voith has adapted the construction of the KE- 485 final drive so that it can be installed as a 1:1 substitute without further vehicle changes. The upgrade will increase the reliability of the drives and reduce operating and maintenance costs of the operators.
Voith will supply wheel sets consisting of the modified final drives, axles, wheels and axle bearings and the overall package also includes new drive shafts. The components will be supplied during 2015. The Class 142 diesel multiple units from Angel Trains are currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales and Northern Rail.

"The conversion illustrates the commitment of Angel Trains to long-term product responsibility and a high customer value," said Mark Hicks , Technical Director of Angel Trains. "For the project, Voith has been a strong partner, especially its more flexible and innovative approach has guided the design of the integrated drive system."

Voith has been certified for its entire service program in the UK already with the Railway Industry Supplier Approval Scheme ( Risa's rail industry supplier certificate). In addition, the Voith factory in Heidenheim was recently certified by Risa for the assembly of complete wheel sets. Voith is currently working to get certification for its ultrasonic axis tests for wheel sets.

Voith is increasingly concerned with a wide range of optimisation projects such as retrofitting, modernisation of power transmission and clutch systems and other initiatives to reduce life cycle costs. These technically demanding projects underline the high quality of the Voith product portfolio, extensive experience and technical know-how, as well as the advantages of a close collaboration with all stakeholders.
End quote

(Any errors are all mine!)

I still have my doubts abut whether or not the class 142's will see life beyond 2020.

As for the class 143's I suspect these will last for a good number of years post 2020 with a decent refurbishment.
It has been suggested that the Valley lines electrification (not including the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale branches could be delayed to allow more use to be gotten out of the class 143 fleet if they do get this life extension work (Caused a  bit of a storm in the WG). I just want the valleys to hurry up and be electrified just to get rid of the pacer fleet although the 143's are pretty much ok to travel on compared to the 142.

FGW's class 165/166 fleet I think will be very much in demand from 2016 when the Thames Valley starts to go over to emu operation although I think FGW will fight to retain a large number of them especailly to use in the west of england like when Portishead is re-opened. I can personally see a 3 carriage class 165 being full and standing when it arrives at Bristol TM from Portishead.

I wonder if a full TSI-PRM convertion is in order for that fleet as well or whether the plan is to provide a toiletless unit for short distance workings, given that Angel (I think) were the ROSCO that wasn't planning to TSI-PRM upgrade their pacers?

Yes it was Angel who decided it wasnt worth upgrading their class 142 fleet.

Yes agreed they are a prized asset. However they come with a couple of draw backs. Like the Chiltern fleet they are not comaprtible elctrically with the 15X varients and they are also have a bigger loading gauge so are restricted to where they can run without extensive gauge widening.

See comments in other posts re suitablity for Salisbury to Southampton for instance. Most GWR locos were always banned on this section hence loco changes at Salisbury . So they will probably be most use on stopping services around Bristol. Whether the 166s, if they fit the loading gauge, with their 2*3 seating and  dodgy air conditioning  will really be suitable to replace the 158s between Bristol and Brighton remains to be seen I am sure the Cotswold line people can voice an opinion.

The CP5 enhancement plan draft listed the gauge clearance work intended for the 165/166 fleet as including everywhere FGW run in an area bounded by Cardiff, Portsmouth, Worcester, Penzance, Weymouth. (Including diversions such as Romsey to Fareham via Eastleigh.)  The only area not mentioned explicitly was Brighton.   'Other posts' about unsuitability always seem to ignore what NR have been saying about gauge clearances for around 5 or 6 years in a variety of route plans and RUSs.  Anyway this is from the latest Jan 13 statement about CP5 enhancements:


Any chance we could go a bit easier on the supposed difficulties of this?

Paul

The incompatibility with 15x units should be relatively easy to fix. In one of their traction brochures Porterbrook stated that it would be easy to convert 168s to be compatible with 15x units if desired so presumably it will be just as easy to convert 165 and 166 units.

Amen! I was recently sorting out some old railway magazines and in one was photo taken in, IIRC, 1991 or 1992 of a Class 165 at Darlington when on a tour of the northern PTEs.

They do fit^!

Difficulties or otherwise, it does appear that NR/DfT are willing to spend the money on guage clearance works for things these days. However, just because 165s/166s to Portmouth is likely to be possible in future does not make them a suitable replacement for the class 158s currently used. I say target single class 150 diagrams for replacement by 165s/166s (which should at least be an improvement, unlike replacing 158s with 16xs) to push 150s and Pacers onto shorter-distance workings.

Your opinion about end doors versus ⅓ ⅔ doors is well known.   

Doesn't necessarily mean the 158s are best suited to the high turnover of passengers you see on the Portsmouth - Cardiff line at stations like Southampton.  I don't think many FGW services meet the planned dwell times.

Exactly the same point is regularly discussed with respect to TPE's inter-regional services isn't it?

Paul

Boils down to the what the majority of passengers are doing journey wise. I contend that on the Cardiff-Portsmouth flow the vast majority of passengers are making relatively short commutes. End doors aren't ideal for such journeys. Take a look at a 158 loading an unloading in the peak at places like Bath Spa and Filton Abbey Wood. Dwell times there often exceed that which is allowed for in the working timetable.

⅓/⅔ doors make much more sense with current infrastructure and timetabling.

There's a more detailed list of 165/6 clearance appeared now, in the finalised enhancement plan (link in the four track thread).  Brighton now appears, as does Poole... 

Now shown in two main phases:

But, interestingly, from Portsmouth.  The Cosham to Havant curve isn't listed (nor the rhubarb loop, come to that), whereas small loops and curves elsewhere are listed.

Where's BTM?  ;D ::)....BRI surely?

Apparently the two abbreviations are completely interchangeable, and anyone fool enough to suggest otherwise should be pilloried for their presumption. :P

Well yes, but I think a glance out of a train window would suggest there are no possible clearance issues along there, its practically straight for a good way, and there are no line side structures such as platforms etc.  I'm pretty sure the only footbridge is well clear of the track. 

Paul

Gunnislake branch is interesting. Currently the only 23m stock permitted along there are the single carriage 153s. The curvature after Bere Alston is quite tight.

Indeed it is the same point. My view is that nobody should have to stand for more than a short hop, and even then prefrably only in the peaks. Also passengers traveling for more than an hour should have a decent standard of comfort, not the tight squesse of things like ATW class 150s. Thus I find the wide ⅓ ⅔ doors providing extra standing room at the expense of comfort highly objectionable on the faster long/longish-distance services which have a fair gap between stops.

What's a fair gap?

On the Cardiff to Portsmouth run there are only three gaps between stations of 20+ minutes (just two at peak times when Severn Tunnel Junction is served) out of 16/17 stops. The vast majority of the gaps are under 15 minutes.

I would assume that it's more intended for Plymouth-Tavistock services. Of course, the new line will probably be built to the clearance standards, so it's only the existing St Budeaux to Bere Alston section that will need checking.

Isnt the problem with a pair of class 153's on the gunnislake branch also down to the fact that the snowplough/cowcatchers can catch each other going around the very tight curves?

I wouldn't - there's no mention of Tavistock extension in the documents that I've seen.

Related to the title, I see that DfT has very magnanimously granted 2 emu's for the north west electrification which goes live this December. Despite having had 3 years to prepare, and with tens of emu's coming off the production line (not to mention quite a few in warm storage), only 2 are being found to run between Manchester and Liverpool. As for the St Helens branch to Wigan, er well that won't have any units although it will also be ready by December.

So not many dmu's to be cascaded, and indeed both will stay in the north west to provide a unit for the Todmorden curve service, and some extra capacity for the Bolton line (which suffered from the loss of TPE services last December).

I expect Northern politicians to be duly unimpressed.

Isn't the full story that they've organised a deal for 12 EMUs to be delivered over the course of the calendar year?    As always, the headlines will probably be based on 2 rather than 12 though. 

I do agree it could all have been done much faster.  They've had plenty of notice, but as it is they aren't even following the timescales shown in the TSGN franchise ITT published only a few months ago.  That firmly implied the first 6 x 319s would be available from May 2014...

Paul

The full story is as clear as mud.

DfT have said Northern will have 2 x 4 car EMUs in service on Liverpool-Manchester from December 2014 (there's provision for around 10 extra EMU diagrams in the North West in the December timetable change including the 'South Manchester' peak time services which are operated by DMUs due to an insufficient number of 323s.) 

DfT have also said Northern will have 40 additional carriages by next year.

Northern have said they'll have 3 x 4 car 319s by the December timetable change.  (3 units and 2 diagrams makes sense.)

Northern have said they'll have 14 x 4 car 319s by next year - that's 56 carriages.

The difference of 16 has been put to Northern (it is understood one way of TPE coping without the 170/3s would be to take 8 x 2 car 158s from Northern) to which their response was "I have confirmation that we are getting 14 x 4 carriage trains, definitely 56 on our calculator! We aren't losing any trains to any other operator."

Maybe the option of TPE taking 158s from Northern is still be considered but not a done deal which is why DfT say Northern will get 40 extra carriages but Northern say they're getting 14 x 319s and not losing any trains to another operator.

According to the Transport for Greater Manchester committee "Members were pleased to note that DfT had confirmed that the proposal to relocate Class 170 diesel units from the north of England to the south east would not now take place."

oooh, got an online link for this? Where did you see it?

It's posted on another forum, originating from these meeting minutes: http://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/tfgmc/downloads/file/4826/item_04_minutes_28_march_2014

It's worth noting that the 170s are only going to stay with TPE until February 2016. The full Oxford to London Marylebone service will commence in Spring 2016. Whilst an interim service is expected to start to Oxford Parkway in Summer 2015, the lack of 170s for Chiltern is only going to be a short term issue for them.

Eh? That minute note says that they're not transferring. Full stop. Not that they're now not going until Feb16 - which was the case in the first place and would be no change.

For ease of discussion - I have copied the relevant paragraph of the minutes below

I can't really see a Feb 2016 transfer working.  The new TPE franchisee won't be able to make timetable or diagrams changes before May 2016.  So if Chiltern do take the 170/3s in Feb 2016 then the new franchisee will need to lease alternative 100mph DMUs, unless First TPE do a timetable recast in December 15 to allow for slower stock being used.

Currently no 185s will be released until at least December 2016 (subject to the franchisee securing electric stock to operate Blackpool services) and the 185s released from there are supposed to provide an additional hourly Piccadilly-Selby service.  So it'll be December 2018 (when North TPE wires are ready to use) before TPE will be able to release DMUs to other operators without taking on replacement diesel stock.

The Northern reference in the quote posted by bobm is due to DfT proposing that Northern could sub-lease 158s to TPE to fill the gap left by the departure of the 170/3s, so it's confirmation that Northern won't be losing 158s to any operator (including TPE) before the end of the current franchise.

I wouldn't rule out a merry-go-round of cascades in late 2015/early 2016.  TPE will need more trains and LM's lease on their 170s expires on 20/09/2015 with the option for an up to 28 week extension, so the next TPE franchisee could approach Porterbrook for some of those (in the same way Chiltern has done) but then LM will need additional stock - the LO 172s would be ideal for them but then they're not available until at least 2017 and so it goes on.

DfT still thinks that they're going to Chiltern in April 2015....letter to his oppo in Labour *after* the date of the meeting those minutes refer to....

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/08%20-%20Letter%20from%20Patrick%20Mcloughlin%20to%20ChairTransPennine%20Rolling%20Stock.pdf

So....which is right?

What date was the letter actually written though?  Like with most MP letters it's been written out the date wasn't included at the time the letter was written but at the date it was signed.  The new Northern franchise was signed a few days before the letter was dated so it could have been written prior to that. 

Maybe an agreement has been reached for TPE to take 170s currently with another operator meaning the North isn't losing 170s to the South East but Chiltern are still getting 170s?

That is certainly one way of reading between the lines of that letter - but from where though, in time for April 2015?

If you want to confuse things further between Louise Ellman writing her letter to Patrick McLoughlin and the response being sent Stephen Hammond appeared before the Transport Select Committee and said an agreement was in place for TPE to keep the 170/3s until the May 2015 timetable change and talks were on-going relating to Chiltern taking the 170/3s in phases between May 2015 and February 2016.

That sounds like what that committee meeting's minutes seem to refer to....

Possible I guess - Chiltern might be able to cope with that suggestion until they go live into Oxford, which would be after Feb2016....

Just a thought. Should all posts on rolling stock transfers new builds etc, go into Smoke and Mirrors As until some units actually move and are seen running for their new users it seems to be pure conjecture.

Perhaps when they do finally move then there should be a new category called "Where do what Units Run?" 

I'm not sure that applies to all rolling stock transfers and new-builds, but it certainly seems to apply to this TPE 170s/Northern 319s/new 387s business. For an example of one that doesn't seem to be changing every minute, see class 700. It is pretty certain that fleet will be deployed to the Thameslink route.

Tony Miles (of Modern Railways) has just explained in the wnxx forum that the TfGM minutes are wrong, nothing has changed according to TPE.

Paul

The next meeting is next Friday where any errors in the minutes would be noted.

The first passenger train has used the Todmorden curve, but it was a special and I understand that regular services aren't staring for a while.

http://www.hebdenbridgetimes.co.uk/news/local/a-journey-into-history-as-train-traverses-todmorden-curve-1-6657817

I despair at the way we run this country!

Spending millions reinstating the curve and then finding there are not enough units to run a regular service.

But then we always have "Spoiled the ship for ha'peth of tar".

It's one of our less endearing characteristics.

Frustrating, but a 6 month delay isn't the end of the world. A minor niggle compared with the loss of the Class 170s in the north.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/burnley/11383967._/?


and

It would appear as though four or five Scotrail class 170s are to transfer to Southern next summer.  Cue more complaints that the south is benefitting at the expense of the north of England and Scotland.

Presumably they're under Transport Scotland control as part of Scotrail franchise, so the DfT not at fault this time?

Not sure whether the complaints will be justified this time, I doubt the five 170s for Southern will be the last to leave ScotRail. TPE might be a dire straights for a short time, and some form of stop-gap is needed, but ScotRail will be releasing many more DMUs (probably including some 170s or 158s, some of which TPE could snap up). Not sure how ScotRail are able to start releasing units next year though, because don't the new fleets not arrive until 2017?