East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[Stevec101]

My answer to that would be to split EM.
A Midlands Express Service which I am guessing would be profitable, and an East Midlands local which could be a concession devolved to the local authorities.

I agree entirely. Basically restore the Midland mainline service back how it was and leave the rest and get the local authorities to run. Just like Abellio seem to be doing with West Midlands trains and London north western

 

[Chester1]

I agree entirely. Basically restore the Midland mainline service back how it was and leave the rest and get the local authorities to run. Just like Abellio seem to be doing with West Midlands trains and London north western

Is there a East Midlands transport body? I think such a setup UK wide is the direction of travel. Its the easiest way for the Tories to sabotage future attempts at nationaisation, effectively limiting it to an intercity opperator and a large number of regional ToCs that would either be conncessions or directly run by regional transport bodies. There is no chance that local Labour politicians will allow their new found influence to disappear.

 

[cactustwirly]

I agree entirely. Basically restore the Midland mainline service back how it was and leave the rest and get the local authorities to run. Just like Abellio seem to be doing with West Midlands trains and London north western

But the local authorities have no money! Just look at Northamptonshire, so what makes you think that they'll provide an adequate service?

 

[dk1]

But the local authorities have no money! Just look at Northamptonshire, so what makes you think that they'll provide an adequate service?

Yes I remember seeing something on BBC Look East about Northampton being very hard up indeed. Not good.

 

[Killingworth]

Grayling has just stated at Transport Questions in the Commons, that the delay in awarding the new Franchise is down to Rail Pensions.

Probably only delayed a matter of a few weeks, possibly two or three months?

 

[HH]

Probably only delayed a matter of a few weeks, possibly two or three months?

3 Months is the normal delay length. You would certainly hope it isn't longer - that would be DafT!

 

[Kneedown]

But the local authorities have no money! Just look at Northamptonshire, so what makes you think that they'll provide an adequate service?

Add to that the numerous local authorites the local side covers, all squabbling about who's going to pay for this and that and you have a recipe for disaster

 

[bunnahabhain]

I stand by my view that is was a total mistake for the EMT local services to be placed in a separate franchise to the diesel west midlands commuter services and that the service levels in the east midlands have suffered as a result. CT used to be able to use west midlands stock in the east on weekends and school holidays meaning the seasonal east midlands services actually had sufficient capacity.

I doubt the West Midlands could do without many vehicles of a weekend these days anyway. But one route that does run fewer services is the Midland Main Line, which means when we know we need them we can use up to two HST sets before things start having to get moved around. Look at Lincoln Christmas Market, two HST sets, a 7 car 222 and a 5 car 222 all out, along with strengthening elsewhere.

Not only that, but the addition of the 3 Angel HST sets will allow for more flexibility on the local side come May.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree entirely. Basically restore the Midland mainline service back how it was and leave the rest and get the local authorities to run. Just like Abellio seem to be doing with West Midlands trains and London north western

A bad idea in practice. Those routes will need (ideally) cross subsidy from the main line network, and possibly some subsidy as well.

Local Authorities should have a good input into specifications, but are too far removed from the treasury to leverage funding from it, so shouldn't be left with the responsibility for financing it. The person funding the railway needs to be opposite the Chancellor at the Cabinet table.

 

[Jozhua]

My answer to that would be to split EM.
A Midlands Express Service which I am guessing would be profitable, and an East Midlands local which could be a concession devolved to the local authorities.

But you're just taking the funds from the profitable line away from the local lines then. That's part of what I feel is wrong with Northern, all their profitable express routes have been taken in the form of Transpennine Express and all that profit probably won't subsidise the local services and instead goes straight into the pockets of First.

 

[whhistle]

It works relatively well as it is. Adding the Birmingham services would have helped the local side black line but West Midlands politicising kyboshed that.

Which makes me think why not give the local BHM - LEI to West Mids and BHM to SSD to East Mids.
One each.
Because let's face it, the LEI - COV service won't get off the ground for years. Although I wonder if any bids talk about this, and whether there would be financial and/or Virgin-style-dummy-throwing thrust from the winner.

Look at Lincoln Christmas Market, two HST sets, a 7 car 222 and a 5 car 222 all out, along with strengthening elsewhere.

Which makes me wonder if they need two drivers?
One to drive the stock, one to know the route - unless they keep Lincoln drivers competent in driving HSTs and Meridians as well as the sprinters?

 

[whhistle]

I see that First Group registered eastmidlandsrailway.com and .co.uk in February last year.
I wonder if they had some sort of pre-look at the ITT or just guessed the new name.

Sort of surprised the Government didn't register it and then hand over responsibility during the franchise change over.
Disappointed as First Group pulled out and I suspect won't give up the domain name. Stupid.

 

[DDB]

Which makes me wonder if they need two drivers?
One to drive the stock, one to know the route - unless they keep Lincoln drivers competent in driving HSTs and Meridians as well as the sprinters?

Even if they do, I bet it is a hell of a lot easier to organise if everyone works for the same company. This ability to use the big London trains for strengthing local services at the weekends for lesuire destinations and special occasions is one of the reasons I much prefer integrated franchises with a mix of long distance to London and local services. That and a better chance of the timetables remaining integrated for people that need to change from local to long distance.

 

[DDB]

But you're just taking the funds from the profitable line away from the local lines then. That's part of what I feel is wrong with Northern, all their profitable express routes have been taken in the form of Transpennine Express and all that profit probably won't subsidise the local services and instead goes straight into the pockets of First.

Depends what you mean by profitable? All the franchise operators are aiming to make a profit and given the competitive nature of the bidding those profits are small.
They bid to either pay the maximum premium to the government or to require the minimum subsidy from the government. The premiums the government receives from intercity lines is spent and then some on subsidies to the local only franchises.

 

[43055]

My answer to that would be to split EM.
A Midlands Express Service which I am guessing would be profitable, and an East Midlands local which could be a concession devolved to the local authorities.

Just no. In a lot of ways other than the money the mainline helps like stock such as HST's to Skegness and Lincoln but also the 222's help out by going to Liverpool and every week on the Leicester to Lincoln route and uttoxeter for the races. There has also been times where a 222 has been sprung into action on the Crewe service to save cancelling a service. Where would this stock come from if the franchise is split? Using spare London stock at the weekend makes sense as it can increase capacity while keeping the same capacity for the rest of the network and the local service does not have enough trains now as it is with both 156 and 158s going for PRM mods and by the end of the year the 153s won't be PRM compliant which poses another question on the local side even if the mainline was being split or not.

 

[43055]

Which makes me wonder if they need two drivers?
One to drive the stock, one to know the route - unless they keep Lincoln drivers competent in driving HSTs and Meridians as well as the sprinters?

I think there are a number of local drivers /train crew which know mainline stock or mainline crew which know the relevant route so you would you can still you can get away with 1 driver and Train Manager for example.

 

[LowLevel]

Which makes me think why not give the local BHM - LEI to West Mids and BHM to SSD to East Mids.
One each.
Because let's face it, the LEI - COV service won't get off the ground for years. Although I wonder if any bids talk about this, and whether there would be financial and/or Virgin-style-dummy-throwing thrust from the winner.



Which makes me wonder if they need two drivers?
One to drive the stock, one to know the route - unless they keep Lincoln drivers competent in driving HSTs and Meridians as well as the sprinters?

Nottingham local drivers and senior conductors have a contingent who sign HSTs and can work them over any local route they sign for special services or charters as required (they've taken them to Liverpool, Lincoln, Crewe, Skegness, Cambridge and a few other places over the years). They usually end up working the football specials as well.

Derby mainline drivers and train managers have a Lincoln link who work 222s to Lincoln. If there's a shortfall in these crews then a route conductor will be provided. Owing to manning agreements double crew are always rostered when a class 222 covers a 156 diagram on Leicester Lincoln services Monday and Friday - these are covered by Derby mainline drivers for the traction and Nottingham or Lincoln local drivers for the route and Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield train managers and Nottingham, Lincoln, Norwich or Derby senior conductors on various legs.

It's complicated and expensive but that's the result of poor rolling stock allocation biting you even 10 years later.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Which makes me wonder if they need two drivers?
One to drive the stock, one to know the route - unless they keep Lincoln drivers competent in driving HSTs and Meridians as well as the sprinters?

There's a link at Derby of TMs and Drivers who sign Lincoln, and a link of drivers at Derby who sign 222, HST and 15x, in addition there are 3 (I think) Senior Conductors who sign 222 and 3 (again, I think) TMs who sign Crewe for when 222s go to Crewe. Nottingham has a number of drivers (approx 10) who sign HSTs, and they're mostly in the spare link so sign everywhere on the local side. There are also 12 Senior Conductors at Nottingham who sign HSTs, they sign all local side routes except Cleethorpes and Doncaster, in those are three who sign HSTs with SDO for the contingency of sending Angel sets to Skegness. Other depots don't sign anything but their core traction.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Even if they do, I bet it is a hell of a lot easier to organise if everyone works for the same company. This ability to use the big London trains for strengthing local services at the weekends for lesuire destinations and special occasions is one of the reasons I much prefer integrated franchises with a mix of long distance to London and local services. That and a better chance of the timetables remaining integrated for people that need to change from local to long distance.

Indeed. Shame the East Coast has such a mix of companies and timetables don’t necessarily integrate for the benefit of the end user.

 

[Meerkat]

But you're just taking the funds from the profitable line away from the local lines then. That's part of what I feel is wrong with Northern, all their profitable express routes have been taken in the form of Transpennine Express and all that profit probably won't subsidise the local services and instead goes straight into the pockets of First.

I see it completely the other way. I really don’t like cross subsidies, especially when they are used to hide the cost of public services. And why should mainline passengers subsidise local passengers?
Either the local services are worth subsidising or they aren’t, but they should have to make their case on their own.
If the weekend summer services are that popular the Mainline operator would want to operate them, or want to hire their stock out rather than have it sitting earning nothing.

 

[bunnahabhain]

I see it completely the other way. I really don’t like cross subsidies, especially when they are used to hide the cost of public services. And why should mainline passengers subsidise local passengers?
Either the local services are worth subsidising or they aren’t, but they should have to make their case on their own.
If the weekend summer services are that popular the Mainline operator would want to operate them, or want to hire their stock out rather than have it sitting earning nothing.

Well, luckily not many people see it your way, and we're going to continue as we are for some time. The only tangible improvement we could gain would be having the East of Birmingham services reattached to the franchise, that or the rest of Lincolnshire's services.

 

[ChrisC]

At the beginning of December I spent a few days in Solihull and travelled into Birmingham Moor Street at about 10am, just after the morning peak each morning. I’m no expert, but these were my observations following a few days of using the West Midlands local services in comparison to EMT.

My first impression was how modern the trains appeared on the line into Birmingham Moor Street and Snow Hill in comparison to EMT local services. Most trains I travelled on were 5 carriage or even 6 carriage 172’s. I know that these trains are not that new now, but they are in comparison to 156’s and 153’s.

I know that the West Midlands has a very intensive and busy peak time train service, more so than the East Midlands, but it was the length of the trains and amount of available stock which surprised me.
What did amaze me was when travelling past Tyseley Depot at the end of the morning peak was the large amount of empty stock that appeared to be returning to the depot and being stabled there presumably until mid afternoon when it would come out again for the evening peak. There certainly is not that luxury in the East Midlands with short formed trains even at off peak times. The East Midlands got a bad deal when Central Trains stock was split up, but it doesn’t seem to have ended there, with the West Midlands continuing over the years to get more new stock for their local services whilst EMT have not had any new local stock.

I may not have the facts correct but that is how it appeared to me just from a few days observation.

 

[Jozhua]

I see it completely the other way. I really don’t like cross subsidies, especially when they are used to hide the cost of public services. And why should mainline passengers subsidise local passengers?
Either the local services are worth subsidising or they aren’t, but they should have to make their case on their own.
If the weekend summer services are that popular the Mainline operator would want to operate them, or want to hire their stock out rather than have it sitting earning nothing.

However one could make the argument local services are vital for feeding the large intercity services that make all the money! I frequently make use of local services to help connect me to the large intercity routes and if those weren't available then travelling by train would be far less of a competitive option for many living in rural areas.

Mainline passengers aren't really forced to subsidise these routes anyway, as the prices are fixed by government. If you're flexible enough with travel times, the train companies frequently offer lower rates anyway!

 

[Meerkat]

Do the local services feed the mainline, or the other way round?
Either way I don’t see why that changes the argument (and the local TOC should get a cut for selling the ticket if it is feeding the mainline)
Prices aren’t fixed by government, just price rises......the mainline prices could be cheaper if they didn’t cross subsidise.

You can’t have honest debates about what the taxpayer should pay for if the costs of things are hidden.

 

[yorksrob]

I see it completely the other way. I really don’t like cross subsidies, especially when they are used to hide the cost of public services. And why should mainline passengers subsidise local passengers?
Either the local services are worth subsidising or they aren’t, but they should have to make their case on their own.
If the weekend summer services are that popular the Mainline operator would want to operate them, or want to hire their stock out rather than have it sitting earning nothing.

I don't really see the logic of your argument.

It's often said that 'x' percentage of the population never use a train. Surely if this is true, it's better that the 'y' of the population who use the InterCity service and who are more likely to use an onward connection, should subsidise the secondary service they are more likely to use, before the general public.

This isn't an argument against public subsidy btw, more an acknowledgement that the railway has a role in supporting its feeder lines before we get to the public subsidy.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

On the basis of finding a "profitable core" , one gets to the Serpell report. (virtually no railways at all)

This would include most of the South East before the North jumps on me. The economics of the Lincolnshire part of EMT are such that (despite efforts) - no extra services were specified in the past consultations. Not to say that these services do not do a fair job in connecting places to places , and people to people.

 

[Aictos]

On the basis of finding a "profitable core" , one gets to the Serpell report. (virtually no railways at all)

This would include most of the South East before the North jumps on me. The economics of the Lincolnshire part of EMT are such that (despite efforts) - no extra services were specified in the past consultations. Not to say that these services do not do a fair job in connecting places to places , and people to people.

Indeed, which was followed by the McNulty review as one of the top 5 dumbest ideas ever to come out of DfT!

At the moment, I'm interested in what will be used to cover the Class 153s and HSTs as they will no longer meet DDA requirements soon so could we see them staying on with a temporary extension to them being used?

 

[HH]

The problem is the definition of "profitable". Does anyone ask whether roads are profitable?

Hopefully everyone understands the point. If you don't, please feel free to ask.

 

[DanDaDriver]

The problem is the definition of "profitable". Does anyone ask whether roads are profitable?

Hopefully everyone understands the point. If you don't, please feel free to ask.

The road haulage industry certainly doesn’t ask....

 

[dk1]

Nationalisation isn't happening fact.

Thank goodness for that