East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[Ianno87]

I've concluded from the TSR2 tables (post Dec 2021), if I'm reading correctly: an Hourly service in effect specified Peterborough-Spalding-Lincoln and Doncaster-Gainsborough-Lincoln (plus intermediate stations). A huge improvement.

 

[LowLevel]

Interesting - back to the old BR route then.

That's a loss for Grantham - Nottingham, but at least means less pressure on the ECML north of Peterborough (a 90mph DMU can't be easy to path there).



Shame - this feels a bit like the "new" Northern franchise, with the riches showered on the fringe services and little benefit to the "core". No improvement on InterCity services, but lots more services from Lincoln to Doncaster (where an irregular 153 generally seems to cope).

Sunday services on the InterCity services are a bit "cosy" and a bit slow... but no end in sight.

Nottingham to Norwich isn't going via Melton Mowbray. Except the 2 morning services 0 trains per hour are specified all day.

 

[DDB]

A couple of random things I think I've spotted in the timetables.

• Later weekday trains from London to Nottingham.
• Looks like hourly Sunday service on the Matlock branch.

DDB

 

[Starmill]

The specifications for service frequency bear no relation to the ORR's estimates of station usage (apparently the ~300,000 passengers per year at EMD need the same level of service as the ~1,300,000 at LBO and that's less than what the ~1,000,000 at Kettering apparently need).

This is not that unusual. Mauldeth Road is the second busiest station on the line between Manchester and Manchester Airport, but it receives the worst service as a result of the recent downgrade. East Didsbury gets a better specification but has many fewer passengers.

 

[dk1]

Interesting - back to the old BR route then.

That's a loss for Grantham - Nottingham, but at least means less pressure on the ECML north of Peterborough (a 90mph DMU can't be easy to path there).

BR introduced one LHCS Yarmouth-Liverpool & return train per day in 1985 but went via Grantham. Even after the full Sprinter timetable was introduced in 88 only a handful took the Melton Mowbray route. 90mph units have very limited impact on the ECML as four tracked here for most of the journey.

 

[Ianno87]

Nottingham to Norwich isn't going via Melton Mowbray. Except the 2 morning services 0 trains per hour are specified all day.

The TSR is the minimum requirement. They could still meet it (if they can demonstrate a Business Case etc.) by diverting the Norwich-Nottingham via Melton Mowbray (which could generate revenue by serving Loughborough, connections to Derby, etc.), then adding a new Grantham-Nottingham to maintain the Grantham TSR (which is the only station bypassed in most hours as a result)

 

[Ianno87]

BR introduced one LHCS Yarmouth-Liverpool & return train per day in 1985 but went via Grantham. Even after the full Sprinter timetable was introduced in 88 only a handful took the Melton Mowbray route. 90mph units have very limited impact on the ECML as four tracked here for most of the journey.

The crossing move out of Grantham and the bit of two track out of Stoke Tunnel are pretty capacity-hungry and more and mor saturated these days.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There appear to be hourly services specified on the Lincoln to Peterborough, Doncaster and Grimsby routes from December 2021 which is some good news in what is otherwise a fairly underwhelming ITT: I do think it's a pity the XC 170 routes won't be moving over, which especially with Nottingham to Liverpool transferring away, the controversy over removing Intercity calls in Northants, an aging local fleet and the HST compliance issue don't combine to make it a particularly attractive business proposition really.

It would, in my mind, be bloody lovely if EMT would have had the Birmingham to Nottingham 'stopper' via Derby with an extension to Newark Castle; allowing the Matlock services to run through to Crewe. The Matlock to Nottingham 'loss' would be a minor issue but extension of Skegness / Grantham to Nottingham services into Derby would keep the same frequencies; but given the ability to have through services from Newark to Birmingham or Skegness to Derby would be grand.

And yes, the Lincoln to Peterborough and Lincoln to Doncaster hourly services is good news - shame they haven't stipulated it as a through route. It may not have a lot of end-to-end journeys, the ability to have a Sleaford to Gainsborough or Doncaster to Spalding journey is handy.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Yep there isn’t much to get excited about.

I’d hope that a TOC might see some value in exploring the Derby-Stoke route as a means to add some more interesting services... it’s a ‘cross country’ axis which is very underused. Even just extending the Norwich-Nottingham to Crewe might be appealing for some. Adds Derby and Stoke and easy Liverpool and Manchester connections at Stoke and Crewe, plus many others including Chester/North Wales. It could supplement the local service and run two hourly, perhaps.

Interestingly yes, this would be an interesting service proposition. Consider the current frequencies (discounting existing through routes):
- 1tph Matlock to Derby
- 1tph Crewe to Derby
- 2tph Birmingham to Derby (non-Voyager)
- 3tph Derby to Nottingham
- 1tph Nottingham to Boston/Skegness
- 1tph Nottingham to Norwich
- 1tph Nottingham to Newark Castle 'extra'

So by changing the pairings, you could end up with:
- 1tph Matlock to New Street
- 1tph Norwich to Crewe via Nottingham and Derby
- 1tph Boston/Skegness to Derby
- 1tph Newark Castle to New Street

Have a 4 car 222 on the Norwich to Crewe; a 3 car 170 for Matlock to New St and Newark to New St; some unit for a Boston/Skegness to Derby and you're in good shape.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

But does that mean the existing Lincoln - Leicester stopper is cut back to Nottingham?

Pre-cursor to Ollerton?

 

[LowLevel]

The TSR is the minimum requirement. They could still meet it (if they can demonstrate a Business Case etc.) by diverting the Norwich-Nottingham via Melton Mowbray (which could generate revenue by serving Loughborough, connections to Derby, etc.), then adding a new Grantham-Nottingham to maintain the Grantham TSR (which is the only station bypassed in most hours as a result)

They could but there's nothing to indicate that they will as people have posted here.

 

[LowLevel]

The guards really don't help themselves on the midland mainline. More often than not they don't leave first class any point north of Leicester.
DOO with on board staff who were actually visible and trained in even the very basics would be an improvement on the current situation in the majority of cases.
Seems to confirm that they'll be little to no investment into the local side which is where the money is actually needed so it looks like a disappointing ITT overall.

DOO wouldn't fix that. Proper provision of the correct number of on board hosts so the train manager isn't cooking meals and doing the washing up probably would.

 

[dk1]

The crossing move out of Grantham and the bit of two track out of Stoke Tunnel are pretty capacity-hungry and more and mor saturated these days.

As a young train announcer in the 90s I recall the 13:00 & 13:53 ex-Norwich being routed via Stamford but only calling at Loughborough before reversing again at Nottingham. Not sure why these two successive trains went that way.

 

[dk1]

With all these suggestions of running to Stansted remember too that unless there is a radical overhaul of the XC timetable it will have to be bi-mode units that operate these services due to platform constraints at the airport. There are very few reliable paths available in/out of platform 3.

 

[SPADTrap]

DOO wouldn't fix that. Proper provision of the correct number of on board hosts so the train manager isn't cooking meals and doing the washing up probably would.

And here we have the correct answer!

 

[whhistle]

I have always felt that the WM franchise would be a better fit.

Although a West Midlands Train service going down to Stansted would be a bit strange.
They should have given the Nottingham to Cardiff to West Mids (or ATW?), while the BHM - Stansted should have gone to EMT so XC can focus on the core XC route.

5.8.30: So basically, if the new timetable doesn't work out, it's up to the Franchisee to solve the problem.

5.9.4: I note it says "operate in another mode" - not specifically highlighting diesel. Hope they choose Steadler units rather than yet more Hitachi.

5.13.2: I'm sure this was on the West Mids ITT too. Wonder how they're going to impliment it, but it would give Abellio a good advantage.

I guess whatever happens though, the Stagecoach colours will disappear.

 

[edwin_m]

Interestingly yes, this would be an interesting service proposition. Consider the current frequencies (discounting existing through routes):
- 1tph Matlock to Derby
- 1tph Crewe to Derby
- 2tph Birmingham to Derby (non-Voyager)
- 3tph Derby to Nottingham
- 1tph Nottingham to Boston/Skegness
- 1tph Nottingham to Norwich
- 1tph Nottingham to Newark Castle 'extra'

So by changing the pairings, you could end up with:
- 1tph Matlock to New Street
- 1tph Norwich to Crewe via Nottingham and Derby
- 1tph Boston/Skegness to Derby
- 1tph Newark Castle to New Street

Have a 4 car 222 on the Norwich to Crewe; a 3 car 170 for Matlock to New St and Newark to New St; some unit for a Boston/Skegness to Derby and you're in good shape.

That would leave Birmingham-Nottingham with 1TPH which is inadequate for two cities of that size and reasonably close together. Matlock-Birmingham was tried in 2002 (?) and didn't work.

I would divert the Nottingham-Cardiff to avoid Derby and save around 15min, and extend the Crewe-Derby to Nottingham in its place. Lincoln could be linked through one of the Birmingham services.

Pre-cursor to Ollerton?

Ollerton could be served by extending the Mansfield Woodhouse terminators.

 

[Qwerty133]

Although a West Midlands Train service going down to Stansted would be a bit strange.
They should have given the Nottingham to Cardiff to West Mids (or ATW?), while the BHM - Stansted should have gone to EMT so XC can focus on the core XC route.

5.8.30: So basically, if the new timetable doesn't work out, it's up to the Franchisee to solve the problem.

5.9.4: I note it says "operate in another mode" - not specifically highlighting diesel. Hope they choose Steadler units rather than yet more Hitachi.

5.13.2: I'm sure this was on the West Mids ITT too. Wonder how they're going to impliment it, but it would give Abellio a good advantage.

I guess whatever happens though, the Stagecoach colours will disappear.

The current situation is that only Birmingham crews work east of Leicester on Stansted services so it makes sense for these services to go to a franchise with an existing depot at New Street (especially as the other depot is at Leicester where neither WM or EMT have any train crew based).

 

[LowLevel]

The current situation is that only Birmingham crews work east of Leicester on Stansted services so it makes sense for these services to go to a franchise with an existing depot at New Street (especially as the other depot is at Leicester where neither WM or EMT have any train crew based).

Birmingham and Cambridge. As it happens (though now irrelevant) most EMT Nottingham and Norwich crews sign Leicester - Melton - Ely anyway!

 

[SeanM1997]

When do we find out what services they will operate?

An hourly service between Crewe and Norwich would help to provide better east-west connections, and provide longer distance services from Crewe to the east. One way I think this could be done is by using 2 carriages Class 158 calling at Crewe, Alsager, Kidsgrove, Longport, Stoke-on-Trent, Longton, Blythe Bridge, Uttoxeter, Tutbury & Hatton, Peartree, Derby, Long Eaton, Beeston and Nottingham. At Nottingham, 2 further Class 158 carriages would be attached with the service continuing to call at Grantham, Peterborough, Ely, Thetford and Norwich. This would allow for both local and long distance on one service, and maximising capacity on the sector needing the most capacity.

 

[ag51ruk]

When do we find out what services they will operate?

An hourly service between Crewe and Norwich would help to provide better east-west connections, and provide longer distance services from Crewe to the east. One way I think this could be done is by using 2 carriages Class 158 calling at Crewe, Alsager, Kidsgrove, Longport, Stoke-on-Trent, Longton, Blythe Bridge, Uttoxeter, Tutbury & Hatton, Peartree, Derby, Long Eaton, Beeston and Nottingham. At Nottingham, 2 further Class 158 carriages would be attached with the service continuing to call at Grantham, Peterborough, Ely, Thetford and Norwich. This would allow for both local and long distance on one service, and maximising capacity on the sector needing the most capacity.

You're unlikely to see an hourly service at Peartree - there is simply no demand for it.

The aspiration in the ITT suggests an additional semi fast service Crewe to Derby and beyond rather than extending the current hourly stopper - there isn't much scope to reduce journey times significantly without missing stations, and I can't see it being popular if the service remains hourly but doesnt stop everywhere.

Any additional trains will take some careful scheduling on the single track section near Alsager, then finding a path on the WCML between Kidsgrove and Stoke.

 

[30907]

As a young train announcer in the 90s I recall the 13:00 & 13:53 ex-Norwich being routed via Stamford but only calling at Loughborough before reversing again at Nottingham. Not sure why these two successive trains went that way.

IIRC in the early 90s track costs were allocated between sectors in pecking order. So if a Provincial train used the fasts to Stoke Summit, there was no access charge, but if they used the slows they paid but the Freight sector went free. So if there was no FL path, going via Melton (where Provincial was the prime user anyway) made sense financially.
The same principle meant that trains between Settle Jn and Carnforth had to be timetabled over a Notional Single Line - the double track is still there, of course, 25 years later.

 

[SeanM1997]

You're unlikely to see an hourly service at Peartree - there is simply no demand for it.

The aspiration in the ITT suggests an additional semi fast service Crewe to Derby and beyond rather than extending the current hourly stopper - there isn't much scope to reduce journey times significantly without missing stations, and I can't see it being popular if the service remains hourly but doesnt stop everywhere.

Any additional trains will take some careful scheduling on the single track section near Alsager, then finding a path on the WCML between Kidsgrove and Stoke.

I can't see this suggestion of an additional Crewe service. Can you post it in this quote?

 

[Kettledrum]

I can't see this suggestion of an additional Crewe service. Can you post it in this quote?

I've seen general comments about increasing capacity on this route such as page 71 of the ITT:

"Bids that preserve, provide new, or enhance existing direct journey opportunities that are important to passengers but are not specified in the TSR, including but not limited to:
i) Maintaining connectivity between non-London locations on the Midland Main Line without adversely affecting journey time improvements for longer-distance flows;
ii) Reinstating peak train services between Wellingborough and Bedford to replace the bus service between these stations as soon as reasonably practicable; and
iii) improving strategic east to west connectivity, which could include enhancements to the Derby – Crewe service to reduce journey times between principal stations and/or extension of this service to destinations beyond Derby."

 

[ag51ruk]

I've seen general comments about increasing capacity on this route such as page 71 of the ITT:

"Bids that preserve, provide new, or enhance existing direct journey opportunities that are important to passengers but are not specified in the TSR, including but not limited to:
i) Maintaining connectivity between non-London locations on the Midland Main Line without adversely affecting journey time improvements for longer-distance flows;
ii) Reinstating peak train services between Wellingborough and Bedford to replace the bus service between these stations as soon as reasonably practicable; and
iii) improving strategic east to west connectivity, which could include enhancements to the Derby – Crewe service to reduce journey times between principal stations and/or extension of this service to destinations beyond Derby."

That is indeed the section I was referring to - reducing journey times between principal stations is only really possible by removing some stops or introducing additional limited stop services - but extending the existing stopping service to Nottingham or further east may achieve the same score as reducing journey times.

 

[geoffk]

You're unlikely to see an hourly service at Peartree - there is simply no demand for it.

The aspiration in the ITT suggests an additional semi fast service Crewe to Derby and beyond rather than extending the current hourly stopper - there isn't much scope to reduce journey times significantly without missing stations, and I can't see it being popular if the service remains hourly but doesnt stop everywhere.

Any additional trains will take some careful scheduling on the single track section near Alsager, then finding a path on the WCML between Kidsgrove and Stoke.

Any intention of extending the Derby - Crewe service to Manchester Airport? I know that MIA is discussed in another thread but the Potteries is (are) one area without a direct service.

 

[ag51ruk]

Any intention of extending the Derby - Crewe service to Manchester Airport? I know that MIA is discussed in another thread but the Potteries is (are) one area without a direct service.

It isn't mentioned in the ITT and the section quoted above specifically says destinations beyond Derby (e.g. Nottingham) rather than destinations beyond Crewe. But who knows what may be in the bids, if paths are available?

 

[Kettledrum]

That is indeed the section I was referring to - reducing journey times between principal stations is only really possible by removing some stops or introducing additional limited stop services.

There has been lots of lobbying from the Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce for extra capacity on this route including moving to half hourly services:

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/local-news/should-improvements-made-crewe-derby-962825

The current 1 coach or two coach services on the line are very well used, and additional faster services are will only increase passenger numbers. The only other way to reduce journey times between Derby and Crewe would be line speed improvements. Currently the Derby to Crewe service takes 79 minutes to cover the 50 mile route. That is an average speed of only 37 miles per hour.

 

[PR1Berske]

Joy be praised, I can't find a thing in the ITT to suggest the DfT is ordering the franchise name to be other than the current one

 

[whhistle]

Joy be praised, I can't find a thing in the ITT to suggest the DfT is ordering the franchise name to be other than the current one

It does.
The branding must be East Midlands Railway.
A subtle change but an important one none the less.
That means it's highly likely the Stagecoach colours will disappear, even if it's them running the service as I can't see using Stagecoach branding colours with a different brand name, but I could be proved wrong.