222 on Derby Crewe route

[Qwerty133]

If it is split TPE and EMT the TPE staff almost certainly won't be based in Nottingham, I would think Sheffield or Manchester.

I can't see 222s being used on the Derwent Valley Line the stations for a start would be too short but also at the end of the day it is still a branch line which can't justify using 125 MPH capable stock for a few small places.

I believe that the platforms are long enough for a 4 coach 222.

 

[tom1649]

I believe that the platforms are long enough for a 4 coach 222.

Indeed and they have been used in normal service on the line on several occasions, including when the Queen visited Matlock this year.

 

[bunnahabhain]

158880 is scheduled to transfer up and join the fleet permanently for the additional Newark services. There is enough spare hours in the rosters for drivers and guards at Nottingham, it would be impossible for them to fit in a Newark on the Derby rosters as they are close to the maximum possible efficiency on their roster.

 

[tocguard]

I believe that the platforms are long enough for a 4 coach 222.

Duffield 4
Belper 4
Ambergate 4
Whatstandwell 3
Cromford 4
Matlock Bath 6
Matlock 5

it would be impossible for them to fit in a Newark on the Derby rosters as they are close to the maximum possible efficiency on their roster.

Yes but rosters and jobs can change. Derby could loose jobs on a certain route in return for additional on another route. EMT are currently recruiting for MORE conductors including Derby which has not seen this many conductors allocated there for a long time.

 

[LowLevel]

Yes but rosters and jobs can change. Derby could loose jobs on a certain route in return for additional on another route. EMT are currently recruiting for MORE conductors including Derby which has not seen this many conductors allocated there for a long time.

In this case not though - the Newark work has already been allocated to depots.

 

[CallySleeper]

Are the units allowed to go up to 110 between Stoke and Kidsgrove? (I think that's the limit)

It seems an HST has run it as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-hOl5GjHA

Slightly offtopic, would anyone be able to explain why it's crawling into the station at 2mph?

 

[tocguard]

Slightly offtopic, would anyone be able to explain why it's crawling into the station at 2mph?

Perhaps waiting for it to be safe to cross the old barrow crossing which was located at this end of the platform when this film was taken? Looks like a race day and the barrow crossing would have been heavily used.

 

[thenorthern]

Slightly offtopic, would anyone be able to explain why it's crawling into the station at 2mph?

Would think as well because its rare to have HSTs along there getting into the platform would be hard.

 

[Class 170101]

Indeed and they have been used in normal service on the line on several occasions, including when the Queen visited Matlock this year.

I thought the 222s were too heavy for the line and so Matlock lost its direct London service when the 222s replaced the 170s.

 

[tocguard]

I thought the 222s were too heavy for the line and so Matlock lost its direct London service when the 222s replaced the 170s.

Bridge strengthening works have been completed for a while now and the route is RA9 standard. A HST has been up amongst other heavy loco's since this has been competed.

 

[CyrixDes]

I believe 222's are too heavy for regular services along this line with the current level of track maintenance. One offs are ok though. There's no way 222's are going to be deployed on these kind of lines in the future, far too expensive to run on line's that bring in such little revenue, in my opinion.

 

[thenorthern]

I believe 222's are too heavy for regular services along this line with the current level of track maintenance. One offs are ok though. There's no way 222's are going to be deployed on these kind of lines in the future, far too expensive to run on line's that bring in such little revenue, in my opinion.

I would agree, Matlock isn't very big and the 4 stations along that branch as well as Duffield can't justify having trains to London on their own. It would be nice if more trains stopped at Belper though.

Would be nice if Crewe to Derby was improved with more destinations such as Manchester, Manchester Airport or Liverpool one way and Nottingham or Leicester the other way but I know its unlikely to happen soon.

 

[tom1649]

Matlock may not be very big but it is the county town and therefore houses the HQ of Derbyshire County Council. Usage of the line has increased quite dramatically since EMT introduced the hourly service.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Its still only enough to justify a 2 car unit for most of the services excepting some early morning into Derby and evening out of Derby services.

 

[thenorthern]

Its still only enough to justify a 2 car unit for most of the services excepting some early morning into Derby and evening out of Derby services.

Agreed, most trains along the line that I have used in the daytime I would say can only justify a single Class 153 with passenger numbers with some of the evening trains I have used you could easily fit all the passengers onto a Parry People mover.

 

[ashworth]

I would agree with you about the possibilities of a through Crewe - Lincoln service; something not seen for many years. However using them on the new Nottingham - Lincoln semi-fast service would also mean that traincrew based at Lincoln would require training on them, as opposed to the odd route conducting journey on them.

Crewe-Derby-Nottingham-Lincoln.
That service hasn't run for some years! That was a very useful route which used to run hourly certainly in the 1970's. I used to use it regularly to travel to college in Derby to/from Lowdham. Can anyone remember when the Crewe-Lincoln service finished?

I think Crewe-Lincoln would be a good route to run again. This would restore the Nottingham to Crewe service for connections to the WCML and it would also give passengers from Lincoln much better connections at Derby than they currently get from the service that terminates at Leicester. However, I think a 156 or 158 unit would be quite sufficient. Why waste a 222, capable of doing 125 mph, on what would always be a relatively slow local cross country service.

 

[thenorthern]

Crewe-Derby-Nottingham-Lincoln.
That service hasn't run for some years! That was a very useful route which used to run hourly certainly in the 1970's. I used to use it regularly to travel to college in Derby to/from Lowdham. Can anyone remember when the Crewe-Lincoln service finished?

It started winding down when Central Trains/British Rail stated running to Skegness rather than Lincoln Central in the early 90s I IIRC but the last train that ran through to Lincoln was in 2003/04 I think when at the time there were some through trains in the evenings from Manchester Airport to Lincoln Central, Cleethorpes and Grimsby Town via Derby. The last regular through train to Nottingham along the line was in 2005 but IIRC there was one late Sunday extension to Nottingham until 2009.

 

[tocguard]

Matlock may not be very big but it is the county town and therefore houses the HQ of Derbyshire County Council. Usage of the line has increased quite dramatically since EMT introduced the hourly service.

You are quite correct. Passenger figures have pretty much on average (taking into account all dewent valley stations) doubled over the last 10 years. The direct London services i believe were well used back then and so given the increase, i cannot see why 1 or 2 journeys that currently start/terminate at Derby couldn't be extended to Matlock. It would ease overcrowding of the 0619/0736 ex Matlock and 0657 ex Ambergate and at the same time it would free up units to be used elsewhere during the morning peak, ie 0740 to Crewe!

 

[Kettledrum]

Are the units allowed to go up to 110 between Stoke and Kidsgrove? (I think that's the limit)

It seems an HST has run it as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-hOl5GjHA

If some units are spare a Derby-Uttoxeter-Stoke-on-Trent-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester train would be nice and with 125 MPH capable stock it shouldn't be too hard to path it but I think that's a distant dream.

The Youtube video says "First EMT HST at Uttoxeter", but I remember seeing an HST going through Uttoxeter 25+ years ago. I'm not sure I anticipate either 222's or the HSTs being regularly used on this route though.

 

[louis97]

You are quite correct. Passenger figures have pretty much on average (taking into account all dewent valley stations) doubled over the last 10 years. The direct London services i believe were well used back then and so given the increase, i cannot see why 1 or 2 journeys that currently start/terminate at Derby couldn't be extended to Matlock. It would ease overcrowding of the 0619/0736 ex Matlock and 0657 ex Ambergate and at the same time it would free up units to be used elsewhere during the morning peak, ie 0740 to Crewe!

If only there were more London services that start and terminate at Derby, the 0657 from Ambergate could be a Meridian then going on to form the 0736 to London. Although that in itself wont free up any stock for as in your example the 0740 to Crewe, as the Ambergate service is the unit that forms that service. The 0736 is hardly an attractive train to London from Derby either.

 

[tocguard]

If only there were more London services that start and terminate at Derby, the 0657 from Ambergate could be a Meridian then going on to form the 0736 to London. Although that in itself wont free up any stock for as in your example the 0740 to Crewe, as the Ambergate service is the unit that forms that service. The 0736 is hardly an attractive train to London from Derby either.

The "hardly attractive" 0736 train would actually be more attractive should it be extended to start from Matlock. Currently if your a Derwent Valley Line commuter to London your only option would be the 0619ex Matlock and changing at Derby onto the 0705 which gets you into London at 0856, a total journey time of 2hr37min.

Now if the 0619 ex Matlock ran a few minutes earlier throughout to leave the branch at Ambergate a few mins earlier, this would allow an ecs 222 to reach Matlock by 0650 and say that departed at 0655, arriving Derby 0730, departing 0736 as is now, arriving London 0946, this is a total journey time of 2hr50min (only 13 min extra, without a change). This could also be reduced to 2hr31 should they wish to change at LEI (announcements regarding this are made by the TM).

EMT wouldn't need to run the Ambergate journey, however, the 0652 DBY - MAT would need to run around 5 min later throughout to facilitate the 222 to come off the branch before that could join. This wouldn't have an effect on the return working as there is enough turnaround time at Matlock. Crew wise this wouldnt be a problem, the crew who do the Ambergate run could just book on around 15min earlier and run ecs to Matlock, in service to Derby whereby a crew change would take place, the driver and TM that would normally work the 0736 take over and the crew that have just worked it in would go on to work their next service which is the 0740 to Crewe.

All do-able. Likely to happen? Probably not

 

[plastictaffy]

There wss also a triple 153 running about.

I bet that was about as welcome as a dose of the clap.

 

[louis97]

The "hardly attractive" 0736 train would actually be more attractive should it be extended to start from Matlock. Currently if your a Derwent Valley Line commuter to London your only option would be the 0619ex Matlock and changing at Derby onto the 0705 which gets you into London at 0856, a total journey time of 2hr37min.

Now if the 0619 ex Matlock ran a few minutes earlier throughout to leave the branch at Ambergate a few mins earlier, this would allow an ecs 222 to reach Matlock by 0650 and say that departed at 0655, arriving Derby 0730, departing 0736 as is now, arriving London 0946, this is a total journey time of 2hr50min (only 13 min extra, without a change). This could also be reduced to 2hr31 should they wish to change at LEI (announcements regarding this are made by the TM).

EMT wouldn't need to run the Ambergate journey, however, the 0652 DBY - MAT would need to run around 5 min later throughout to facilitate the 222 to come off the branch before that could join. This wouldn't have an effect on the return working as there is enough turnaround time at Matlock. Crew wise this wouldnt be a problem, the crew who do the Ambergate run could just book on around 15min earlier and run ecs to Matlock, in service to Derby whereby a crew change would take place, the driver and TM that would normally work the 0736 take over and the crew that have just worked it in would go on to work their next service which is the 0740 to Crewe.

All do-able. Likely to happen? Probably not

Just the small issue of fitting the extra Meridian around mainline services. Would need to wait for the 0716 southbound XC service to pass Ambergate Junction, unless it didn't call at Belper and Duffield of course. To not delay the Matlock bound service getting onto the branch the Meridian could go into Up Passenger Loop there - just a case of getting the service to Derby in time to go to London then.

 

[bunnahabhain]

The real solution is to stop one or two peak time London route trains at Belper and possibly Duffield to take up some of the slack.

 

[tocguard]

The real solution is to stop one or two peak time London route trains at Belper and possibly Duffield to take up some of the slack.

Well i could guarantee that a full run from Matlock to London would be more more well used than the Lincoln one (0704). Complete waste of time that one. I know it was a franchise agreement and they have to see it through but it is such a waste when other areas would benefit much more. There are better alternatives to getting to London from Lincolnshire via the East Coast.

 

[CyrixDes]

The Matlock suggestion is all good but as I mentioned previously, the line isn't maintained to be capable of taking regular 222 trips as they are far far heavier than the sprinters/turbostars that have operated the line in the past. The only solution to this would be significant investment in improving the track/maintenance or increased access for NR to maintain the infrastructure. Both highly unlikely to operate a service which I unlikely to produce much revenue

 

[tocguard]

The Matlock suggestion is all good but as I mentioned previously, the line isn't maintained to be capable of taking regular 222 trips as they are far far heavier than the sprinters/turbostars that have operated the line in the past. The only solution to this would be significant investment in improving the track/maintenance or increased access for NR to maintain the infrastructure. Both highly unlikely to operate a service which I unlikely to produce much revenue

Its now RA9 standard. Class 66's use the route regularly on RHTT's. Peak Rail have heavy loco specials. They are a damn sight heavier than a 222. The Meridians are only 5tonne heavier per coach than a turbo. Even a 5 coach 222 is considered route availability 2, the same as a 158 that use the route on a daily basis. I'm sure everyone is assuming we're only talking about the possibility of 1 service in each direction per day anyway.

 

[tom1649]

I regularly read the FDVL (Friends Of Derwent Valley Line) news and minutes of meetings and whilst I'd read that 222s and other heavy trains can now use the line, I've read nothing about there being any limitations on such trains. I thought the reason for weight limits in the past were a couple of weak bridges which have since been sorted out.

 

[CyrixDes]

The key bit I'm getting at is regular I.e. Daily. The line is capable of taking these trains on an irregular basis but not regularly without increased maintenance on the line. That is what EMT were told when they planned to run the 222 up there for the Queen, they could do it as a one off but without additional maintenance could not do it on a regular planned basis

 

[tocguard]

The key bit I'm getting at is regular I.e. Daily. The line is capable of taking these trains on an irregular basis but not regularly without increased maintenance on the line. That is what EMT were told when they planned to run the 222 up there for the Queen, they could do it as a one off but without additional maintenance could not do it on a regular planned basis

Where is your basis for this information? TOC's pay network rail a pre determined amount per mile per coach dependent on the traction used which is a cost decided by network rail. This will be calculated on the amount of wear network rail expect that traction to cause and therfore this cost covers future maintenance costs.

Basically if EMT wanted to run a daily 222 and the Network Rail cost per mile per coach was more than a sprinter then they would pay that extra for doing so. For network rail to turn around and say no you can't run a category RA2 train on a route that is now RA9 standard that they would be willing to pay for is ridiculous. If that was the case, no heavier rolling stock would exert replace existing lighter stock on any line! At the end of the day you pay for usage and wear through track access charges based on the stock used.

Besides, EMT have used a 222 up to Matlock on several occasions, before and after the Queen's visit. Some of these because of shortage of sprinter availability.