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

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^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) 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.

What date was the letter actually written though?  Like with most MP^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post - a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London, depending on context) 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^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) to take 170s currently with another operator meaning the North isn't losing 170s to the South East but Chiltern are still getting 170s?

I can't really see a Feb 2016 transfer working.  The new TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), 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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise)'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.

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

According to the Transport for Greater Manchester committee "Members were pleased to note that DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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."

At one stage it was envisaged 319s would appear on Thames Valley initially and at a later date 5 car commuter IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) would replace them.  Hence, Thames Valley appeared in to the Foster Review in to IEP: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/Foster_IEPReviewAnnex2010.pdf (P27)  The suggested alternative was re-engineered 319s would operate on Thames Valley until CP7 when new commuter EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) would be ordered as replacement.  Obviously, having new EMUs from the outset was also looked in to but the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) was withdrawn.

While new EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) for Thames Valley from the outset had been looked at before, the following is from the Network Rail CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) plans dated 31st March 2014:


They do, however, mention potential future work to allow new EMUs capable of 110mph operation.

Some TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) staff are under the impression that it's been decided that the 4 car 350/4s will be inadequate for Manchester Airport to Scotland services when the Commonwealth Games are on and a possible sublease of the new 350/3s for LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) is being discussed to allow most services to operate as 8 carriages instead of 4 for the duration of the Commonwealth Games.

The full story is as clear as mud.

DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have said Northern will have 2 x 4 car EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) 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^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) 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.

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.

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.

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!

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^▸ (Transport for Greater Manchester. Devolved body responsible for public transport coordination in the Greater Manchester metropolitan area.) 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^▸ ('as far as I know') a 170 has never run along the Chester-Altrincham-Manchester line but a variety of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) and locos have past and present from Pacers, Sprinters, 175s, Voyagers, class 31s 57s, 60s and 66s.

What 170s do Chiltern have?  Have they loaned 170s off LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise), XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), Anglia or Scotrail?  If not then they don't have any, only different types of 168s, some of which are effectively modified 170s.