Network Rail confirmed plans for CP5 and aspirations for CP6

[BantamMenace]

This is one of my issues with running 225's on the MML. If we are struggling at the moment even with platform sharing surely things are only going to get worse? The current situation has existed at St Pancras for a few years now so one suspects that things are unlikely to ever improve.

With the 225s all being identical however it would allow a case of the first in, first out in times of disruption.

First one in becomes the first one cleaned, becomes the first one re-seat-reservationed and then available for the next departure wherever that may be to. No need to wait for the right stock to become available as they're all identical.

(That wasnt a pro-225 for MML post, it was a post about pro-identical stock with 225 as the example)

 

[RichmondCommu]

With the 225s all being identical however it would allow a case of the first in, first out in times of disruption.

First one in becomes the first one cleaned, becomes the first one re-seat-reservationed and then available for the next departure wherever that may be to. No need to wait for the right stock to become available as they're all identical.

(That wasnt a pro-225 for MML post, it was a post about pro-identical stock with 225 as the example)

I understand what you are saying. However, at the moment the only way to maintain the current timetable is to at certain times have two separate trains on the same platform. That will be physically impossible if we are using 225's on the MML.

A much better solution would be a fleet of identical 5 car 125 mph EMU''s.

 

[Tomnick]

8tph would be theoretically possible, with no platform sharing, with 20-25 minute turnarounds - surely not unrealistic for relatively short distance services? It's unlikely to be that simple in reality, but 6tph should be a doddle really.

 

[RichmondCommu]

8tph would be theoretically possible, with no platform sharing, with 20-25 minute turnarounds - surely not unrealistic for relatively short distance services? It's unlikely to be that simple in reality, but 6tph should be a doddle really.

So in other words if all the trains are of a uniform length there should be no need for platform sharing with 6tp?

 

[Tomnick]

Even with mixed train lengths, it shouldn't be a problem! Even if just some of the trains had a shorter (20'-25') turnaround, as long as the timetable was arranged such that the platforms were quickly reoccupied, 6tph really shouldn't be a squeeze.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Even with mixed train lengths, it shouldn't be a problem! Even if just some of the trains had a shorter (20'-25') turnaround, as long as the timetable was arranged such that the platforms were quickly reoccupied, 6tph really shouldn't be a squeeze.

So why has the penny not dropped! All this confusion at St Pancras (through no fault of EMT it appears) for nothing? Surely these problems would have been raised with NR after all this time?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Dream on, it's not going to happen. The TOC would not be that stupid.

The TOC may not get the choice. DaFT will normally decide on allocations as GatEx found to their cost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why has the penny not dropped! All this confusion at St Pancras (through no fault of EMT it appears) for nothing? Surely these problems would have been raised with NR after all this time?

Because it hasn't been properly thought through.

It is more than possible to separate the departures so that they start 20-25 min apart rather than less than 10.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The TOC may not get the choice. DaFT will normally decide on allocations as GatEx found to their cost.

I'm afraid you might be right! What’s worse is that the 225's will arrive without any refurbishment and will be seen as hand me downs. Not to mention their other faults.

 

[Tomnick]

I suspect that the platform sharing has come about partly because the linespeed improvements have resulted in slightly later Down departures and slightly earlier Up arrivals in some cases - prior to that, it seemed to work quite neatly, with a platform being quickly reoccupied after a departure. Now, that arrival needs to use another platform, meaning that they're generally not being reoccupied so quickly and aren't being used so efficiently. The planners have my sympathy to a certain extent - the Sheffield semi-fast and the Nottingham slow do need to depart close together, as otherwise the latter will be caught up by the following Sheffield fast...that's one of the constraints imposed by the mixture of fast and relatively slow trains over the best part of 100 miles.

 

[Haydn1971]

From current snippets and network rail documents, I can see the 387 fleet heading to service the Corby corridor in 2017/18, with IC225's cascaded from ECML as the 800's come on stream and electrification heads north between 2018/20, the 222 fleet gradually going to strengthen the Virgin WC franchise, with the Virgin WC 221's then going to XC through 2019/21. Once the ECML & GWML base contract is delivered by 2019, plus the extra units clause is exercised keeping hitachi busy till 2021 ish, I can see a further order of a SET type fleet of trains for MML in 2022/24 ish, then extending to replace the XC fleet of then 25 year old voyagers in 2025/27. If anyone has any brains, I'd make the MML/XC order as a HS2 Classic Compatable fleet, run them in on MML/XC and then as these move to HS2 in 2029 ish, spread the ECML 800's across to MML and order a new fleet for XC which by then will form the main IC support to HS2.

See, easy !

 

[The Ham]

From current snippets and network rail documents, I can see the 387 fleet heading to service the Corby corridor in 2017/18, with IC225's cascaded from ECML as the 800's come on stream and electrification heads north between 2018/20, the 222 fleet gradually going to strengthen the Virgin WC franchise, with the Virgin WC 221's then going to XC through 2019/21. Once the ECML & GWML base contract is delivered by 2019, plus the extra units clause is exercised keeping hitachi busy till 2021 ish, I can see a further order of a SET type fleet of trains for MML in 2022/24 ish, then extending to replace the XC fleet of then 25 year old voyagers in 2025/27. If anyone has any brains, I'd make the MML/XC order as a HS2 Classic Compatable fleet, run them in on MML/XC and then as these move to HS2 in 2029 ish, spread the ECML 800's across to MML and order a new fleet for XC which by then will form the main IC support to HS2.

See, easy !

Not sure the ICWC would need more 22x's as in 2017 the new franchise (should) be let, if the last atempt is anything to go by there will be more EMU's comming to replace some/all of the 221's. I could see that having some of the longer 222's could be good, however I would have thought that they would rather be able to run split services (i.e. 2x5 coach sets running paired up out of London to then split and go to different desitinations).

If SET/IEP were to be used on MML and XC I would have thought they would arrive over (say) two years during (say) 2020 and 2021 so that they arrive very close to the start of the franchises.

That would however leave a lot of 22x's which 15-20 years of life left in them and a limited number of places where the would be of use. I could, if it ment that they got some use rather than none, see some end coaches going in to store or scrapped to enable lengthening of other sets.

It does lead to teh question of how useful would a 3 coach 220 with 156 (standard only) seats be (about 13 seats less than the 185's, although they have first class seats)? As, although they would have fairly low capaity, the fact that they could keep up with IC trains when on mail lines could be an advantage.

If there was enough use for them we could form 4 x 9 coach sets, 6 x 4 coach sets and 24 x 3 coach sets, although with (say) 12 end coaches going into store it could change to 5 x 9 coach sets, 6 x 4 coach sets and 18 x 3 coach sets.

 

[Kettledrum]

I understand what you are saying. However, at the moment the only way to maintain the current timetable is to at certain times have two separate trains on the same platform. That will be physically impossible if we are using 225's on the MML.

A much better solution would be a fleet of identical 5 car 125 mph EMU''s.

At the moment, the MML platforms are long enough for 2 5 car 222's to be coupled together on a platform at St Pancras and run either as a service with 10 passenger carrying cars, or 2 separate 5 car services. With the class 91's and a DVT, surely each service would only have 8 passenger carrying cars - with no flexibility to have two separate services departing from the same platform.

Adding an extra platform to the West of the existing station looks possible, but very expensive.

The option of lengthening the existing platforms by bringing them back slightly further into the train shed could be explored though. There looks to be loads of space.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

the 222 fleet gradually going to strengthen the Virgin WC franchise

Not much use to VWC without tilt.

 

[northwichcat]

Not sure the ICWC would need more 22x's as in 2017 the new franchise (should) be let, if the last atempt is anything to go by there will be more EMU's comming to replace some/all of the 221's. I could see that having some of the longer 222's could be good, however I would have thought that they would rather be able to run split services (i.e. 2x5 coach sets running paired up out of London to then split and go to different desitinations).

At the moment there are no plans to wire the North Wales Coast or wire to Shrewsbury (which is expected to be served by the next franchise.) Virgin's failed bid for the WCML franchise included ordering new Pendolinos and diesel locos so that the 221s would no longer be required. However, First's bid was to order new electric trains so that all the electrified routes could be run by electric units and to internally cascade the 221s to improve services on the non-electrified routes. First and Virgin both proposed similar sized new orders of electric units so the First bid included a lot more capacity for the franchise, although Virgin said their bid was based on unrealistic levels of passenger growth.

 

[Haydn1971]

That would however leave a lot of 22x's which 15-20 years of life left in them and a limited number of places where the would be of use. I could, if it ment that they got some use rather than none, see some end coaches going in to store or scrapped to enable lengthening of other sets.

That's an option, but at less than 20 years old, still a lot of life left in the units, hence why I'm suggesting that the 222 fleet goes under a single franchise, the West Coast one, whilst the Virgin 221 fleet go to reinforce the XC franchise keeping the fleets consistent across the two rather than chopping and changing. It's not ideal, but becoming more likely.

Let's also be clear that whilst the IEP contract can supply more units, a new contract for MML/XC or even WCML would be a whole new contract that any train manufacturer could tender for, so there's just a big a chance that so something completely different would be rolled out, thus my thought on something that could be cascaded to HS2 as a classic compatable. The 220/221/222 will be with us until HS2 comes on stream, the 390 fleet may last a tad longer, the 800 fleet will be still running past the full HS2 network coming into operation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not much use to VWC without tilt.

That's a very short term view, the next WCML franchise will see more routes max out in terms of train paths, so more seats on a train will become much more important than ultimate speed. The 2020's will see more routes full up, more tricks used to maximise capacity, plus intercity train purchasing focused on what will be needed post HS2 - Which will be a step change in that only Great Western and Cross Country will be the only major intercity franchises next to the HS2 franchise, as ECML and WCML become commuter/stopper focused south of the M62, and consumed into the HS2 franchise north of the M62, with MML becoming totally focused on commuter/stopper services.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

IMO a better use for the 222's would be to send them to Great Western (or their successor) to run services to the south west and avoid a need to life extend the HST's, as they should be feed up from the Midland Mainline by the end of this decade just as the DDA regulations come into effect.

This would however only be a temporary situation as by 2020 there should be a commitment from the government towards electrifying the cross country network in CP6 which should reach to at least Exeter if not Plymouth. This plus infilling from Newbury to Cogload Junction would allow most of the services to the southwest to be worked by Bi-mode IEP which would be freed up by a follow on order for electric only IEP allowing an internal cascade within the Great Western Franchise.

 

[PhilipW]

IMO a better use for the 222's would be to send them to Great Western (or their successor) to run services to the south west and avoid a need to life extend the HST's, as they should be feed up from the Midland Mainline by the end of this decade just as the DDA regulations come into effect.

This would however only be a temporary situation as by 2020 there should be a commitment from the government towards electrifying the cross country network in CP6 which should reach to at least Exeter if not Plymouth. This plus infilling from Newbury to Cogload Junction would allow most of the services to the southwest to be worked by Bi-mode IEP which would be freed up by a follow on order for electric only IEP allowing an internal cascade within the Great Western Franchise.

Bi-Mode IEPs are not up to the job of running over the banks west of Newton Abbot - the problems of trying to have your cake and eat it with both diesel and electric engines together. Current plans just have IEPs running as far as Paignton with HSTS running to Plymouth.

As to what happens when the HSTs conk out, I have no idea. I'm not sure the DfT have either.

 

[43074]

I'm afraid you might be right! What’s worse is that the 225's will arrive without any refurbishment and will be seen as hand me downs. Not to mention their other faults.

What makes you say that?! No-one has confirmed anything regarding the future of the Mark 4s, any refurbishment is merely an afterthought at the moment because no one knows what will happen to them after IEP!

Yes they would be seen as hand me downs etc. wherever they go (GEML, MML even XC etc.), but only by the likes of a few such as yourself! Most people won't care how old the trains are as long as they get them from A to B, and if they are given an extensive refurbishment then people can be fooled into thinking it's a new train anyway!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Bi-Mode IEPs are not up to the job of running over the banks west of Newton Abbot - the problems of trying to have your cake and eat it with both diesel and electric engines together. Current plans just have IEPs running as far as Paignton with HSTS running to Plymouth.

As to what happens when the HSTs conk out, I have no idea. I'm not sure the DfT have either.

Good point, I suppose that makes a stronger case for electrification to Plymouth as IEP's would be running on electric power over the Devon Banks rather than diesel power.

 

[The Ham]

Bi-Mode IEPs are not up to the job of running over the banks west of Newton Abbot - the problems of trying to have your cake and eat it with both diesel and electric engines together. Current plans just have IEPs running as far as Paignton with HSTS running to Plymouth.

As to what happens when the HSTs conk out, I have no idea. I'm not sure the DfT have either.

... or it makes the case for reopening via Okehampton better as they cound then run that way

 

[NotATrainspott]

Bi-Mode IEPs are not up to the job of running over the banks west of Newton Abbot - the problems of trying to have your cake and eat it with both diesel and electric engines together. Current plans just have IEPs running as far as Paignton with HSTS running to Plymouth.

As to what happens when the HSTs conk out, I have no idea. I'm not sure the DfT have either.

Why would the bi-mode IEPs not be capable? They are capable of 200km/h operation on diesel power to the best of my knowledge and they have distributed traction along the entire length of the train which makes them accelerate faster enough than HSTs to require a full-scale rewrite of the ECML timetable.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Bi-Mode IEPs are not up to the job of running over the banks west of Newton Abbot - the problems of trying to have your cake and eat it with both diesel and electric engines together. Current plans just have IEPs running as far as Paignton with HSTS running to Plymouth.

As to what happens when the HSTs conk out, I have no idea. I'm not sure the DfT have either.

This seems patently ridiculous. The trains aren't going to be twice as heavy as the electric versions. If they're capable of hauling them to 125mph of straight track, they'll be capable of getting up the Devon banks on time.

If I had my cynical hat on, I'd say it was an enthusiast wishing for loco hauled electrics who dreamed this up.

 

[PhilipW]

Why would the bi-mode IEPs not be capable? They are capable of 200km/h operation on diesel power to the best of my knowledge and they have distributed traction along the entire length of the train which makes them accelerate faster enough than HSTs to require a full-scale rewrite of the ECML timetable.

Well, I am not an electrical engineer so I can't get into technical discussions with anyone. All I can say is that I have read it on a number of occasions in various Railway magazines, including 'Modern Railways' which is generally renowned for its technical expertise.

I don't quite understand your point about the rewrite of ECML timetable. From Kings Cross to Edinburgh, the Bi-Modes will be under electric power so there will be no speed degradation. As to whether they will be faster or slower than HSTs between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and Inverness, I don't really think that will bother passengers too much or have much impact on timetables.

I stand by my point that under current plans the fleet of Bi-Modes on order for FGW will only be running as far as Paington; HSTs will continue to run to Plymouth and beyond. If my assertion that Bi-Modes would struggle west of Newton Abbot is considered incorrect, I have to wonder why then not more were ordered to replace the HSTs as soon as possible, given that I think it is generally accepted that prolonging the life of the HSTs into the 2020s is going to be a struggle. I don't have an answer to that question.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well, I am not an electrical engineer so I can't get into technical discussions with anyone. All I can say is that I have read it on a number of occasions in various Railway magazines, including 'Modern Railways' which is generally renowned for its technical expertise.

AIUI the problem mostly went away when they took the original design of 10 car bi-mode out of the scheme. The initial plan for that variant (only) had a diesel power car at just one end, and only one transformer at the other, hence it had only the same diesel power as that of a 5 car bi-mode and it was generally considered underpowered - this led to the idea that it would have to use both modes on the mainline to achieve 125 mph timings. The 10 car DMU had two power cars though. By the time the actual trains were ordered, they'd changed to underfloor engines spread throughout the train as necessary for the 5 or 9 car size. Roger Ford eventually did a follow up article that explained the improvements, but the original perceived problem seems to have stuck around...

 

[jimm]

Well, I am not an electrical engineer so I can't get into technical discussions with anyone. All I can say is that I have read it on a number of occasions in various Railway magazines, including 'Modern Railways' which is generally renowned for its technical expertise.

I don't quite understand your point about the rewrite of ECML timetable. From Kings Cross to Edinburgh, the Bi-Modes will be under electric power so there will be no speed degradation. As to whether they will be faster or slower than HSTs between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and Inverness, I don't really think that will bother passengers too much or have much impact on timetables.

I stand by my point that under current plans the fleet of Bi-Modes on order for FGW will only be running as far as Paington; HSTs will continue to run to Plymouth and beyond. If my assertion that Bi-Modes would struggle west of Newton Abbot is considered incorrect, I have to wonder why then not more were ordered to replace the HSTs as soon as possible, given that I think it is generally accepted that prolonging the life of the HSTs into the 2020s is going to be a struggle. I don't have an answer to that question.

I think you're getting confused with previous 'power house' incarnations of IEP, which were the ones Roger Ford demolished the performance claims for in Modern Railways. A five-car bi-mode packs 2,700-plus hp under the floor from three engines, so I think it might just make it to Plymouth...

No decision has been made on what will work to the West Country post-2020 because it doesn't need to be made yet. If one takes the Government's claim that it's up to operators to sort out rolling stock, then a new GW franchisee would have that issue to deal with.

But if FGW is now to stay on until 2020, then it seems fair to assume that sorting out what happens post-2020 will be one of the things the Government tells FGW to get on with. This will presumably involve weighing up the cost of overhauling Class 43s and giving Mk3s power doors and retention tanks for toilets, against buying more IEPs, in the light of any further progress with plans to spread electrification.

 

[tbtc]

With the 225s all being identical however it would allow a case of the first in, first out in times of disruption.

First one in becomes the first one cleaned, becomes the first one re-seat-reservationed and then available for the next departure wherever that may be to. No need to wait for the right stock to become available as they're all identical.

(That wasnt a pro-225 for MML post, it was a post about pro-identical stock with 225 as the example)

Whilst I appreciate that we are getting ahead of ourselves, when there's certainly been nothing official to hint that 225s will be moving to the MML (with or without 91s), the fact that we could have one type of stock running all St Pancras services north of Kettering would enable the platforms at St P to be much better used.

At the moment, the interworking with the Corby services means that we have a mixture of 4/5/7/8/9/10 coach Meridians plus the HSTs - and as far as I am aware staff aren't all trained on both types of stock (?) - which means platforms are inefficiently used.

Compare to Fenchurch Street with the "a 357 is a 357 is a 357" approach, so any incoming train can form any outgoing train (the only limit being whether its a four/eight/twelve coach one) - much more efficient.

As I've said before, if 225s did come to the MML it'd probably only be for maybe a decade, maybe less - just like a lot of newly electrified lines are going to see "interim" stock - whilst they aren't *ideal*, they'd do a job - and the railway needs somewhere to send them.

The various routes from Sheffield to West Yorkshire (via Doncaster, via the Dearne Valley, via Barnsley) would all be high up my biased list of CP6 electrification schemes, but I think that they would work on their own merits, rather than because of the need to get MML stock to/from Neville Hill - EMT only use the depot in Leeds for historical reasons - like the fact that there's no proper "shed" in Sheffield - in the same way that Northern's Sheffield area Pacers are maintained at Heaton in Newcastle - the increasing number of trains on virtually all franchises means there's maybe a better case for a proper "shed" around Sheffield (he says, hopefully!).

**​

As for bi-mode IEP not being able to cope with Cornish services, we are expecting these trains to cope with the Highland Main Line, so I hope they are okay climbing hills on diesel power.

 

[RichmondCommu]

What makes you say that?! No-one has confirmed anything regarding the future of the Mark 4s, any refurbishment is merely an afterthought at the moment because no one knows what will happen to them after IEP!

Yes they would be seen as hand me downs etc. wherever they go (GEML, MML even XC etc.), but only by the likes of a few such as yourself! Most people won't care how old the trains are as long as they get them from A to B, and if they are given an extensive refurbishment then people can be fooled into thinking it's a new train anyway!

Well by all accounts (or at least what Hadyn has stated) the 225's are heading to the MML once the IEP's enter service. Given that there will be little time to carry out any refurbishments (rather like the 319's) the 225's are likely to be 'sold as seen'. And even if customers don't pick up on this you can be sure that the local media will! And as for an extensive refurbishment once they arrive on the MML there won't be enough of them to start taking them out of service.

And that's before we get on to capacity issues at St Pancras caused by full length 225's, their poor acceleration and a fleet that costs a lot of money to maintain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I appreciate that we are getting ahead of ourselves, when there's certainly been nothing official to hint that 225s will be moving to the MML (with or without 91s), the fact that we could have one type of stock running all St Pancras services north of Kettering would enable the platforms at St P to be much better used.

At the moment, the interworking with the Corby services means that we have a mixture of 4/5/7/8/9/10 coach Meridians plus the HSTs - and as far as I am aware staff aren't all trained on both types of stock (?) - which means platforms are inefficiently used.

You seem to have forgotten that for the current timetable to work at certain times two 5 car Meridian sets share the same platform at St Pancras. Clearly this would be not the case if 225's were introduced on the MML. Sharing platforms is far from ideal but there doesn't appear to be a solution to this problem.

I'm not aware that EMT still run 4 car Meridians although I will be happily corrected on this. Also I would be very surprised if EMT's staff training was so poor that staff were not cross trained! In which case the Head of Talent / Human Resources needs to go quickly!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's an option, but at less than 20 years old, still a lot of life left in the units, hence why I'm suggesting that the 222 fleet goes under a single franchise, the West Coast one, whilst the Virgin 221 fleet go to reinforce the XC franchise keeping the fleets consistent across the two rather than chopping and changing. It's not ideal, but becoming more likely.

Let's also be clear that whilst the IEP contract can supply more units, a new contract for MML/XC or even WCML would be a whole new contract that any train manufacturer could tender for, so there's just a big a chance that so something completely different would be rolled out, thus my thought on something that could be cascaded to HS2 as a classic compatable. The 220/221/222 will be with us until HS2 comes on stream, the 390 fleet may last a tad longer, the 800 fleet will be still running past the full HS2 network coming into operation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That's a very short term view, the next WCML franchise will see more routes max out in terms of train paths, so more seats on a train will become much more important than ultimate speed. The 2020's will see more routes full up, more tricks used to maximise capacity, plus intercity train purchasing focused on what will be needed post HS2 - Which will be a step change in that only Great Western and Cross Country will be the only major intercity franchises next to the HS2 franchise, as ECML and WCML become commuter/stopper focused south of the M62, and consumed into the HS2 franchise north of the M62, with MML becoming totally focused on commuter/stopper services.

Thats not what the DfT / Network Rail are suggesting. People seem to forget that Leicester will still require fast trains to London and to the North Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

[Tomnick]

Although the current timetable appears to require platform sharing, I'm sure it wouldn't take much tweaking to eliminate it. The Corby service doesn't seem to interwork with anything else now, at least between the peaks - I'm not sure whether that contributes or not.

Just to tidy up a couple of other loose ends - all 'mainline' drivers (i.e. St Pancras and Derby, possibly excepting a handful of purely 15x drivers at the latter?) sign both 222s and HSTs, and there are some 4-car 222s knocking around (the ones from Hull Trains), but they do seem to be used sensibly as far as possible.

 

[Haydn1971]

Well by all accounts (or at least what Hadyn has stated) the 225's are heading to the MML once the IEP's enter service.

I'm quoting a line from the Network Rail document that mentions both 10x 26m which "could" be Class 800/801 or a new class by Hitachi or others as design and regulations will be tighter and also mentions 9x 23m loco hauled, which sounds like IC 225, but also could be an electric hauled Mk3 rake (less likely).

Given that there will be little time to carry out any refurbishments (rather like the 319's) the 225's are likely to be 'sold as seen'. And even if customers don't pick up on this you can be sure that the local media will! And as for an extensive refurbishment once they arrive on the MML there won't be enough of them to start taking them out of service.

As said by others, "if" the IC 225's go to MML, it's possible that some or all could be shortened to better match the needs of MML and I don't expect them to be there long, perhaps 3-5 years max from 25kv introduction to Leicester and soon after reaching Sheffield - that's my opinion

And that's before we get on to capacity issues at St Pancras caused by full length 225's, their poor acceleration and a fleet that costs a lot of money to maintain.

I'm not entirely convinced that in the short term absolute journey times over extra seats will be that much of an issue - as said above, they could be shortened to reduce running costs, I'm not sure how that would impact on acceleration and in any event I'm not entirely convinced that acceleration differences are going to be that different or even that important. Also, are the IC225's that much more to maintain than the DEMU 222 fleet ?

You seem to have forgotten that for the current timetable to work at certain times two 5 car Meridian sets share the same platform at St Pancras. Clearly this would be not the case if 225's were introduced on the MML. Sharing platforms is far from ideal but there doesn't appear to be a solution to this problem.

As others have said, if we can't run 5-6 IC225's from a four platform station someone really needs to get their backsides kicked - a generous turnaround in 20 minutes at peak should enable at least 2 trains per hour per platform - 8 trains per hour.

Thats not what the DfT / Network Rail are suggesting. People seem to forget that Leicester will still require fast trains to London and to the North Midlands and Yorkshire.

Fair comment, but post HS2 I'd expect a Toton-Leicester-St Pancras pattern of maybe 3 trains per hour at peak calling at a variety of different places between Leicester and London, there will be no need for St Pancras to Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield - Chesterfield however looks destined to lose out as I can't see a regular IC from just there being economic

 

[Tomnick]

I can't imagine Nottingham or Derby giving up their London services without a fight - although Toton might actually be more convenient for some London-bound commuters, I don't think it'd be preferable for the majority. The flows to both Nottingham and Derby for onward connections into the XC network from intermediate stations to the south are quite significant too.

I shouldn't think Chesterfield would lose out too much either, even if its trains end up being slowed down somewhat north of Leicester.