New Midland Mainline Stock?

[Nym]

But a 5 car Class 222 has LESS Seating than a 4 car Class 158...

 

[MCR247]

Hardly surprising. But the route is currently run by 2 car 158s

 

[dosxuk]

In my own experience, there is quite a lot of suppressed demand for the service, caused by lack of stock and high ticket prices. One of the Central Trains managers once said in the press that they were deliberatly increasing ticket prices to reduce demand for seats as they were unable to put any more carriages on the trains. Several of my journeys between Sheffield and Norwich I now do via London as it's often cheaper, more comfortable and not that much slower.

When it was operated by 3 car 170s, it was still often full & standing. I've had to stand all the way from Sheffield to Norwich on one of these before now.

IMHO, a new build, 5 car, 100MPH DMU, with carriage end doors (158 style), with a first class section, buffet / trolley area would significantly improve the route and the demand on the east side would rocket, while still retaining sufficent capacity for future growth along the entire route.

 

[ainsworth74]

Hardly surprising. But the route is currently run by 2 car 158s

But I suppose the issue becomes that on the other side of Nottingham a 5-car 222 will provide less capacity than at present. So you boost capacity on one side and decrease it on the other. 7-car 222s to Norwich anyone

 

[Bald Rick]

If we're looking at a major stock change though, how hard would it be to change these to 60MU75 and 75MU90 limits?

The problem is everything beneath the rails. On some stretches the answer is pretty expensive. The resignalling was specified for the higher speed, indeed future proofed for 100 where practical.

 

[Nym]

The problem is everything beneath the rails. On some stretches the answer is pretty expensive. The resignalling was specified for the higher speed, indeed future proofed for 100 where practical.

Thanks for that data, EA is in one of my blind spots...

How about then ordering some new rolling stock for the route, as discribed above, in the form of 3 car DMUs, possibly 4 car DMUs with full SDO throughout, (3 car being a better option) so that the service can split at Nottingham. Perhaps reforming 158s for this or stealing some from SWT in the form of their 159s when they're replaced?

A splitting service would of course perform better if two destinations were to be provided, but again, E Mids is a blind spot so I'm not aware of anywhere else from Nottingham it could go.

Of course, another solution would be re-opening the line between Matlock and Chinley for Passengers, and providing a second service between Nottingham and Manchester, since the Liverpool to Manchester demand is about to be much better catered for as part of the TPE electrification project, a new service could run from the East Manchester Lines via Guide Bridge onto Chinley and then to Nottingham via Matlock and Derby (Omitting Stockport to avoid this very congested section of line) this service could be operated by a larger peice of rolling stock such as a mediran.

An alternative again here could then be to cut the current service via Nottingham short to Nottingham and send this new service onwards to Norwich, but it would depend on timings via Matlock.

 

[HSTEd]

The obvious other place for a splitting service at Nottingham to go would be Skegness with the split taking place at Grantham instead of Nottingham.

The two services are only 15 minutes apart on the line between Grantham and Nottingham so it is not really a true 2tph service anyway.
Half the train could go to Skegness and the other half to Norwich as now, the extra stops between Grantham and Nottingham on the Skegness train could be accomodated thanks to the enormous amount of slack in the current Liverpool-Norwich timetable on this stretch.

 

[Yew]

The obvious other place for a splitting service at Nottingham to go would be Skegness with the split taking place at Grantham instead of Nottingham.

The two services are only 15 minutes apart on the line between Grantham and Nottingham so it is not really a true 2tph service anyway.
Half the train could go to Skegness and the other half to Norwich as now, the extra stops between Grantham and Nottingham on the Skegness train could be accomodated thanks to the enormous amount of slack in the current Liverpool-Norwich timetable on this stretch.

That sound a good idea, I was thinking lincoln or worksop, but that sounds better

 

[Nym]

The obvious other place for a splitting service at Nottingham to go would be Skegness with the split taking place at Grantham instead of Nottingham.

Where's that "Like" Button?

Sounds good to me, space at Grantham to do this I assume?

Would any else on here be happy with two 3 car 158 or 159 units being used for this? Although they don't have SDO or UDS fitted so it could be intresting at some Hope Valley stations...

 

[Kneedown]

Thanks for clearing that up

No probs. Sorry my reply was brief but on early this morn and bed was calling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From time to time, and they don't seem to justify a five/seven coach 222 to me.

I'm happy to defer to Kneedown here as he has more experience though.

You can normally just about get a seat, but luggage capacity is a big problem so extra capacity is needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure, but I estimate a 5 coach meridian wouldnt have mcuh more in the way of seating than a 4 car 158. certainly a reduction in standard seats.

A lot more luggage capacity though which is a big need on both halves of the route.
Capacity is about more than seats for botties, it's also about keeping aisles and vestibules free of suitcases and pushchairs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But a 5 car Class 222 has LESS Seating than a 4 car Class 158...

I refer you to my post above Sir. Seating is fine now on the Liverpool stretch.

 

[tbtc]

You can normally just about get a seat, but luggage capacity is a big problem so extra capacity is needed

Thanks - to clarify, are you talking about the (two coach) eastern end or the (four coach) western end of the route?

 

[junglejames]

Tbh the major difference from a pax POV is that the 220 is a Intercity train and the regioswinger isn't. 220 --> ICE-T whereas a regioswinger is more like a tilting 170

But the voyagers have done such a good job of lowering the standards of so called Intercity stock, that there now isnt much difference between Intercity and non Intercity in some cases. In fact, in some cases, non Intercity stock is better than this so called Intercity stock. Take the 175s for example. They are like the Orient Express compared to voyagers.

May explain why i refuse to see voyagers as Intercity stock. They may operate on ex Intercity routes, but so did 170s when on the Midland Mainline.

 

[DXMachina]

I think 'Intercity' stock can be defined separately from 'Regional' stock by speed.

Sprinters are stuck at 100mph max, EMUs at 100/110

 

[Zoe]

I think 'Intercity' stock can be defined separately from 'Regional' stock by speed.

Sprinters are stuck at 100mph max, EMUs at 100/110

So the 395s would be intercity stock then?

 

[starrymarkb]

But the voyagers have done such a good job of lowering the standards of so called Intercity stock, that there now isnt much difference between Intercity and non Intercity in some cases. In fact, in some cases, non Intercity stock is better than this so called Intercity stock. Take the 175s for example. They are like the Orient Express compared to voyagers.

May explain why i refuse to see voyagers as Intercity stock. They may operate on ex Intercity routes, but so did 170s when on the Midland Mainline.

175s are the same as 180s which are intercity stock - they were originally going to be a single design for North Western Trains, this was then split into a 100mph 3 car regional and 125mph 5 car intercity which were diverted to sister company Great Western Trains*. The only difference is the Cabs and bigger engines/transmissions under the floor. IIRC the structural design is based on the 156!

*All Pre First Takeover, deliveries occurred after the First take over

 

[Kneedown]

Thanks - to clarify, are you talking about the (two coach) eastern end or the (four coach) western end of the route?

Both really have the same problem, but i was alluding to the eastern half.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think 'Intercity' stock can be defined separately from 'Regional' stock by speed.

Sprinters are stuck at 100mph max, EMUs at 100/110

<Pedant hat on> Sprinters are 90mph max. A 170 isn't a Sprinter <Pedant hat off>

 

[Nym]

<Pedant hat on> Sprinters are 90mph max. A 170 isn't a Sprinter <Pedant hat off>

<Bigger pedant hat on>

Spinters and Super Sprinters are 75mph max, Express Spriners are 90mph max

<bigger pedant hat off>

 

[MCR247]

But the voyagers have done such a good job of lowering the standards of so called Intercity stock, that there now isnt much difference between Intercity and non Intercity in some cases. In fact, in some cases, non Intercity stock is better than this so called Intercity stock. Take the 175s for example. They are like the Orient Express compared to voyagers.

May explain why i refuse to see voyagers as Intercity stock. They may operate on ex Intercity routes, but so did 170s when on the Midland Mainline.

Oh please. Put it this way meridians are intercity stock. 170s aren't. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

 

[DXMachina]

So the 395s would be intercity stock then?

Obviously yes

 

[MCR247]

Intercity stock? I'm not sure I'd really agree tbh

 

[tbtc]

May explain why i refuse to see voyagers as Intercity stock. They may operate on ex Intercity routes, but so did 170s when on the Midland Mainline.

As I've explained before, the MM 170s were not meant for longer distance passengers - they were on all stop services designed to allow the HSTs from Sheffield/ Nottingham to speed up.

The 170s sat for ten minutes (or more!) at Leicester to allow plenty of time for interchanging with HSTs (which overtook them at Leicester).

The fact that they were running on the same line doesn't mean that they were running the same type of service; a whole different thing.

You might as well claim that 350s are Intercity because they follow the same lines that Virgin's Pendolini use between London and Birmingham.

 

[junglejames]

As I've explained before, the MM 170s were not meant for longer distance passengers - they were on all stop services designed to allow the HSTs from Sheffield/ Nottingham to speed up.

The 170s sat for ten minutes (or more!) at Leicester to allow plenty of time for interchanging with HSTs (which overtook them at Leicester).

The fact that they were running on the same line doesn't mean that they were running the same type of service; a whole different thing.

You might as well claim that 350s are Intercity because they follow the same lines that Virgin's Pendolini use between London and Birmingham.

The number of stops and how long they waited at Durban or Perth has nowt to do with it. It isnt the point. They ran London to Nottingham. The same route as Intercity stock. Im just using it to prove a point that its not the run you are on. Its the stock. ie Voyagers.
As for 350s. Why would i claim they are Intercity stock? Ive made it plainly obvious its the stock that matters, not the run. Hence they are not Intercity stock.

 

[sprinterguy]

The number of stops and how long they waited at Durban or Perth has nowt to do with it. It isnt the point. They ran London to Nottingham. The same route as Intercity stock. Im just using it to prove a point that its not the run you are on. Its the stock. ie Voyagers.
As for 350s. Why would i claim they are Intercity stock? Ive made it plainly obvious its the stock that matters, not the run. Hence they are not Intercity stock.

350s perform the same runs as Intercity stock: London to Birmingham (And London – Crewe isn’t dramtically shorter than London to Liverpool or Manchester, either). So even by your slightly bizarre selection criteria they meet the same standards as Midland Mainline’s 170s did.

 

[tbtc]

The number of stops and how long they waited at Durban or Perth has nowt to do with it. It isnt the point. They ran London to Nottingham. The same route as Intercity stock. Im just using it to prove a point that its not the run you are on. Its the stock. ie Voyagers.
As for 350s. Why would i claim they are Intercity stock? Ive made it plainly obvious its the stock that matters, not the run. Hence they are not Intercity stock.

eh?

So 170s running slow services from London to Nottingham were Intercity (even though they were on services designed to wait at Leicester for a good ten minutes to ensure a connection with the HST which overtook them there - clearly advertised in the timetable to encourage people to change at Leicester)...

...but 350s running services from London to Birmingham aren't Intercity (even though they are running alongside the Pendolini on that corridor)?

 

[junglejames]

Oh please. Put it this way meridians are intercity stock. 170s aren't. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

Thats funny. I mention voyagers, and you try and counter with Meridians?
Can I use the Orient Express to counter any pacer arguments from now on?

Anyway. Proper Intercity stock doesnt have underfloor engines.
Some DMUs are called Intercity stock, but all they are doing is lowering Intercity standards. So by all means call them Intercity stock if you want. Just means I will need a seperate term now. 'True Intercity stock'. This term doesnt include underfloored engines. Intercity stock is meant to be nice comfortable pleasant stock. Underfloor engines cannot fall into this category. The noise will always intrude to some extent, and they cause increased vibrations.

Dont worry though, you can have your Intercity terminology. Ive just had to add a new term.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

eh?

So 170s running slow services from London to Nottingham were Intercity (even though they were on services designed to wait at Leicester for a good ten minutes to ensure a connection with the HST which overtook them there - clearly advertised in the timetable to encourage people to change at Leicester)...

...but 350s running services from London to Birmingham aren't Intercity (even though they are running alongside the Pendolini on that corridor)?

Since when did i claim 170s were Intercity stock? Never.
I have always used them as an example to prove a point. Once again, it isnt the route, its the stock that matters. Hence just like Voyagers, you have non Intercity stock on services associated with Intercity stock. The number of stops they make from here to mars never played a part in the argument. You just thought it did.

170s are not Intercity stock. They were just on runs associated with Intercity stock (even if the services they operated couldnt be called Intercity services (too slow)).
Voyagers are not Intercity stock. Despite being on services that people would assume to be an Intercity service.

You just added extra points in to confuse things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

350s perform the same runs as Intercity stock: London to Birmingham (And London – Crewe isn’t dramtically shorter than London to Liverpool or Manchester, either). So even by your slightly bizarre selection criteria they meet the same standards as Midland Mainline’s 170s did.

Well yes they do. But not how you imagine.
Non Intercity stock, on non Intercity services, running on routes associated with Intercity stock.

However you are just confusing matters. This was never the argument. I was always saying it is the stock that determines whether it is Intercity stock or not. It ISNT the route that determines it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

350s perform the same runs as Intercity stock: London to Birmingham (And London – Crewe isn’t dramtically shorter than London to Liverpool or Manchester, either). So even by your slightly bizarre selection criteria they meet the same standards as Midland Mainline’s 170s did.

Well yes they do. But not how you imagine.
Non Intercity stock, on non Intercity services, running on routes associated with Intercity stock.

However you are just confusing matters. This was never the argument. I was always saying it is the stock that determines whether it is Intercity stock or not. It ISNT the route that determines it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think 'Intercity' stock can be defined separately from 'Regional' stock by speed.

Sprinters are stuck at 100mph max, EMUs at 100/110

Hey?
Speed has nowt to do with whether something is Intercity stock or not.
So are we saying a Mk3 is only Intercity stock if placed between a pair of power cars, but chuck it behind a 100mph class 86, and it isnt Intercity stock?

 

[DXMachina]

I guess I was thinking about the modern stock situation. Correct me if I'm wrong but you won't find 86s hauling mk3s anywhere, any more?

 

[Lewisham2221]

In my own experience, there is quite a lot of suppressed demand for the service, caused by lack of stock and high ticket prices. One of the Central Trains managers once said in the press that they were deliberatly increasing ticket prices to reduce demand for seats as they were unable to put any more carriages on the trains. Several of my journeys between Sheffield and Norwich I now do via London as it's often cheaper, more comfortable and not that much slower.

When it was operated by 3 car 170s, it was still often full & standing. I've had to stand all the way from Sheffield to Norwich on one of these before now.

IMHO, a new build, 5 car, 100MPH DMU, with carriage end doors (158 style), with a first class section, buffet / trolley area would significantly improve the route and the demand on the east side would rocket, while still retaining sufficent capacity for future growth along the entire route.

The problem with CT though, was their complete inability to dedicate stock types to routes, pretty much with the only exception of X-City would always be a 323. Using 170's (2 or 3 car) on the North Staffs, Derwent Valley and Cannock lines, whilst using 153/6/8's elsewhere was good from an entertainment factor, but can't be good if you ended up with a 156 on Liverpool - Norwich!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the voyagers have done such a good job of lowering the standards of so called Intercity stock, that there now isnt much difference between Intercity and non Intercity in some cases. In fact, in some cases, non Intercity stock is better than this so called Intercity stock. Take the 175s for example. They are like the Orient Express compared to voyagers.

May explain why i refuse to see voyagers as Intercity stock. They may operate on ex Intercity routes, but so did 170s when on the Midland Mainline.

I'd hardly call a 125mph train, built with a 'proper' first class section, 'end' doors and 'buffet' arrangement a non-Intercity train though. And as 175's are underfloor engined, I assume your comparison is basically with regards to the table/airline seat ratio?

 

[tbtc]

Proper Intercity stock doesnt have underfloor engines.
Some DMUs are called Intercity stock, but all they are doing is lowering Intercity standards

What about bi-mode IEP? Is it Intercity when using electric power under the wires (since the underfloor engines wouldn't be used), but non-Intercity when using diesel mode away from the wires?

170s are not Intercity stock. They were just on runs associated with Intercity stock (even if the services they operated couldnt be called Intercity services (too slow))

"runs associated with intercity stock"?

So the 350s from London to Birmingham are presumably also ""runs associated with intercity stock"?

 

[MCR247]

Thats funny. I mention voyagers, and you try and counter with Meridians?
Can I use the Orient Express to counter any pacer arguments from now on?

Anyway. Proper Intercity stock doesnt have underfloor engines.
Some DMUs are called Intercity stock, but all they are doing is lowering Intercity standards. So by all means call them Intercity stock if you want. Just means I will need a seperate term now. 'True Intercity stock'. This term doesnt include underfloored engines. Intercity stock is meant to be nice comfortable pleasant stock. Underfloor engines cannot fall into this category. The noise will always intrude to some extent, and they cause increased vibrations.

Dont worry though, you can have your Intercity terminology. Ive just had to add a new term.

Yawn. Don't you get bored of being so repetitive?

I know I'm bored.

 

[dosxuk]

The problem with CT though, was their complete inability to dedicate stock types to routes, pretty much with the only exception of X-City would always be a 323. Using 170's (2 or 3 car) on the North Staffs, Derwent Valley and Cannock lines, whilst using 153/6/8's elsewhere was good from an entertainment factor, but can't be good if you ended up with a 156 on Liverpool - Norwich!

I've done a Norwich - Sheffield run on a 4 car 156 before. And a particularily rotten smelly one at that.