There isn't a requirement to have a toilet on a train.  There is an expectation that unless it's a local service with a frequent service, such as London Overground, that a toilet is provided.  However, if a new train has a toilet fitted it has to have a DDA compliant one.

What you have to note is the 170s and 185s on North TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) currently do have DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliance and quite a bit of luggage space, although it is insufficient for the amount of luggage carried.  If you start making DDA compliant services non-complaint then it will anger disability groups more than not making all trains DDA compliant in the first place.

There was a response to DDA compliance by Philip Hammond not too long ago where he said that trains that only have minor DDA infringements will be allowed to continue in service post-2019.  He didn't define 'minor' but I doubt a Pacer could be classed as only having minor infringements.  Network Rail and PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) are looking at Pacer replacement options but they won't be implemented before the next general election.  Likewise, Porterbrook at looking at class 153 options and it's likely they'll be reformed as 155s or permanently attached to other Sprinters.

Add in:
* DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliance
* Sufficient luggage space for North TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) services - they serve Manchester Airport and numerous university towns and cities. The 185s actually have insufficient luggage space and suitcases commonly get left in the doorways and aisles.
* Regional style seating with more tables replacing commuter style seating

And you'll be down to around 200 seats per 4 car set.  DDA compliance and the door layout are the main reasons why 3 car 185s have less seating than 3 car 158s.

TPE services have been 6 car sets full and standing at peak times now, so with passenger growth an 8 car set will be exactly the same by the time the electrification is complete.

Under NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) if the operator has appointed a third party to perform ticket checks then the passenger does have to show them their ticket.  Likewise if you are boarding a FGW service at an ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) managed station you can't refuse to show an ATW ticket inspector your ticket because you're travelling with FGW.

Network Rail released on report to the government recommending electrification for North TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express), Valley Lines and the London Overground 172 routes, providing the necessary facts and figures and asking for funding to be provided.  North TPE is the only one the government has announced.  I imagine that's because it's the only one that doesn't require another party's consultation.  Valley Lines will need to involve the Welsh Assembly, while London Overground will need to involve TfL^» (Transport for London - about).

Network Rail have identified that around 130 Pacers need replacing in the 2014 to 2019 Control Period.  They put a case in to the government to fund North TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) electrification (except York-Scarborough) and Valley Lines as a way of both replacing Pacers and replacing other DMUs that can replace Pacers with EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit).  The government have approved part of the North TPE electrification and apparently will talk with Network Rail next year about the viability of electrifying other parts not included so far like Hull and Middlesbrough.


The Guardian reported the government are looking at cascading EMUs to North TPE opposed to ordering new ones.  It is understood that refurbished 365s, due for replacement under the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) program, will be the 'new' TPE EMUs.  However, replacing 3 carriage trains with 23m carriages with 4 carriage trains with 20m carriages won't really provide the extra capacity required unless the intention is to run them all in 8 car formation but then you have problems with providing an on board trolley service.

In summary, this thread states they've taken on the following in addition to the 150/0s and the toilet less 150/2 vehicles:

150108
150126
150101
150102
150122
150104
150106
150124
150125

150202
150216

Edited because numbers do actually up, they didn't seem to at first.

It's not always the case though.  In their TransPennine bid First and Kelios specified new 3 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), which could be extended to 4 car DMUs, in contrast Arriva specified the more expensive option of 4 car DEMUs^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit).  The First/Kelios bid won.  However, what should have been an order of 56 x 3 car units, finished up as an order of 51 x 3 car units plus 9 cascaded 2 car 170s.  The 4th carriage option was not taken up despite huge growth in passenger numbers.  Then to top it off the Virgin Voyager service between Manchester and Scotland was withdrawn and TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) had to use their existing stock to run a Scottish service, so they withdrew their Manchester Airport to Windermere service (except for a token service) and reduced capacity on other TPE routes by using the 170s in 2 car formation instead of 4 car formation.

Then it's accepted Manchester-Bolton-Preston needs more capacity so Northern get told to run additional services, they get the extra stock to run the additional services, then DfT say look we're giving Northern extra carriages.

A small fire was reported on 150229 at Cardiff Central last night.

The newspaper article posted by bignosemac gives the answer for TPE's Scarborough-Liverpool service.  Blackpool/Cumbria/Scotland to Manchester Airport services would have almost certainly terminated at Manchester Oxford Road and started their return working short. 

Other TPE services should have been able to run their full route but with delays.  Although, there was also a signalling problem near Huddersfield at the same time so some of the North TPE services may have terminated short due to running very late.

Diverting via Victoria doesn't always mean using the Denton line.

TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) do divert via Victoria during engineering works but don't use the Denton line.  I don't think the Denton line is even cleared for 185s and 170s.

The TPE services from the Leeds direction would take to Victoria would be the same as Northern Rail's Huddersfield-Victoria stopper.  If it's an Airport service it would usually go to Salford, reverse, then go to the Airport via Piccadilly - which requires going through platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly.  If it's a Liverpool service it would go via Newton-le-Willows to Liverpool.

EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) and TPE services from the Sheffield direction would terminate short and have a replacement bus service.

Northern don't operate any services between Buxton/Hazel Grove and Preston/Blackpool on Sundays.  The through service they do operate is a Chester-Stockport-Southport service, which during engineering works they terminate short and run replacement bus services.

However, if engineering works occur on a Saturday or Bank Holiday affecting Stockport-Deansgate then Northern will run the services between Buxton/Hazel Grove and Preston/Blackpool via the Denton line and Victoria. 

The reason I said about it being unlikely that the Wigan-Buxton service would have used the Denton line is because it's either operated by a Picaddilly crew who don't sign the Denton line or there would be a crew change at Manchester Oxford Rd, so diverting via Victoria would cause crew problems, unless there was a spare crew at Victoria who sign both the Denton line and the Buxton line.


To make matters worse long freight trains for Trafford Park have to pass through those two platforms.  GMPTE^▸ (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. Now TfGM^▸ (Transport for Greater Manchester. )) converted the alternative route to Metrolink!

That's precisely why there are plans to have platform 15 and 16 at Piccadilly.  Although, in a speech given in Leeds Ms Villers recently went in to detail about all the funding that had been spent on the rail - billions of it in London and then said the projects earmarked for the North will cost hundreds of millions, which we may not be able to find, meaning platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly may be at risk.  Although, eletrification projects are safe.

Unlikely.  Given that only Northern Rail crews would sign that route it rules out most through services going that way.

The Wigan Wallgate to Buxton service that departs Piccadilly at 18:21 would probably have been the only service that could have usefully gone that way while platforms 13 and 14 were closed at Piccadilly.  However, when you consider:
* The Buxton passengers would have been at Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly not Victoria
* There may not have been a path or a through platform available at Victoria
* A crew change may have been required to send it that way, if the crew working the service didn't sign the Denton line
It's probably unlikely the Denton line was used.  It's more likely that service would have been terminated at Oxford Road and restarted from platforms 1-12 at Piccadilly, subject to an available unit and if no available unit then cancelled from Oxford Rd onwards.

The problem would be for people on services approaching Piccadilly from the South and East that were due to continue Northwards or Westwards. If you've come from York and planning to go to Liverpool then you find yourself on a stopped train somewhere between Stalybridge and Piccadilly so you can't alight and walk.

The above must be referring to the additional 153s FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have got from LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).

Yes both 13 and 14 at Piccadilly at bi directional.  There is also the option of using 14a for trains coming from Oxford Road and going back there, without continuing to the Airport etc.

However, the area was closed off while emergency services dealt with the situation so no trains could run between Piccadilly and Oxford Road until it was declared safe.