East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[Aictos]

It's basically a nonsense to assume that every individual route can be assigned as either profit or loss making. When the railways were first built and run on a geographical basis, branch and main line were bundled together so that the secondary routes provided passengers and freight to the main routes which in turn subsidised the rest of the network.

Why would we suddenly change the way that railways have operated from their beginnings for the sake of a lot of 1990's era ideological wibble ?

Wow, have I entered a alternate universe as that's the second poster I found I've agreed with tonight!

 

[tbtc]

When the railways were first built and run on a geographical basis, branch and main line were bundled together so that the secondary routes provided passengers and freight to the main routes which in turn subsidised the rest of the network.

Why would we suddenly change the way that railways have operated from their beginnings for the sake of a lot of 1990's era ideological wibble ?

You're revising history a little bit there.

When the railways were first built and run, this was all done by private companies taking commercial risks - they didn't intend services to be unprofitable, they didn't do it for some worth notion of Public Service, they did it because they thought they would make profits from doing things faster and more efficiently than canals etc had managed in the past.

Now, personally, I'm all for merged franchises, I think that East Midlands Trains is a good shape of franchise, I don't want to go back to the days of snooty InterCity operators like GNER that would rather run branded coach services than put their passengers onto connecting "Provincial" trains. I think that EMT have been able to share their limited resources for thinks like HSTs to Skegness in the summer and Lincoln in December - I think it works. I just object to the idea that those Victorian entrepreneurs were building infrastructure for some noble purpose (like the public libraries and other amenities of the time) - they were in it for the money - filthy filthy profit - and good luck to them - but nowadays they are painted as acting like the wettest of Social Workers trying to do nice things for everybody.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think Norwich - Liverpool might now be the longest route in the country using former BR DMUs. I doubt any longer routes use ex-BR EMUs now.

The main difference is (compared to Wick for example) , is the route actually carries passengers. Loads of them !

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Not sure what's just happened but for once I see we are both in full agreement

As to the franchise services although I guess it's a franchise commitment but why did they have the Corby services call at Luton while the Semi Fast Nottingham services call at Luton Airport Parkway?

Could the new franchise shake up their services and instead have the newly EMU operated services to Corby stop at Luton Airport Parkway instead and have the semi fast Nottingham services call at Luton instead?

Could the Corby services also stop at St Albans, I know they have 6 TL services a hour btw...

Having influenced the Slow Nottingham to call at LAP , I would suggest this would be well worth retaining , seems to be enough trade ln both directions.

As the Corby is effectively empty stock off peak , it might as well call at SAC (only the busiest station on the line) - to provide better connections northbound ......

 

[Meerkat]

It's basically a nonsense to assume that every individual route can be assigned as either profit or loss making

Who said every line? Service groups however.....and BR sectors is supposed to be some glorious age so why is it now a good idea to have operators trying to do two rather different things (operate a profitable express service and operate a public service metro and rural system)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Who said every line? Service groups however.....and BR sectors is supposed to be some glorious age so why is it now a good idea to have operators trying to do two rather different things (operate a profitable express service and operate a public service metro and rural system)

Oh dear ...private good ,public bad eh .....?

At least BR actually had a very good idea of what costs / revenue were for lines and routes. Right down to track and infrastructure , stock , stations and so on. Compared to the "soup" we have know of top down costs from NR and the franchise bid bottom. With not a lot of accountabilty from the DfT.

I suspect the old Regional Railway / Inter City management would , and do , express a shrug of shoulders as to today's railway's accountabilty in financial terms.

 

[yorksrob]

You're revising history a little bit there.

When the railways were first built and run, this was all done by private companies taking commercial risks - they didn't intend services to be unprofitable, they didn't do it for some worth notion of Public Service, they did it because they thought they would make profits from doing things faster and more efficiently than canals etc had managed in the past.

Now, personally, I'm all for merged franchises, I think that East Midlands Trains is a good shape of franchise, I don't want to go back to the days of snooty InterCity operators like GNER that would rather run branded coach services than put their passengers onto connecting "Provincial" trains. I think that EMT have been able to share their limited resources for thinks like HSTs to Skegness in the summer and Lincoln in December - I think it works. I just object to the idea that those Victorian entrepreneurs were building infrastructure for some noble purpose (like the public libraries and other amenities of the time) - they were in it for the money - filthy filthy profit - and good luck to them - but nowadays they are painted as acting like the wettest of Social Workers trying to do nice things for everybody.

They weren't building infrastructure for some noble purpose. They were building it to get people and freight to, and from the mainlines.

Who said every line? Service groups however.....and BR sectors is supposed to be some glorious age so why is it now a good idea to have operators trying to do two rather different things (operate a profitable express service and operate a public service metro and rural system)

The difference, of course being that the service sectors sat underneath the BR board which was able to arrange cross-subsidy between sectors in the traditional manner.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Exactly - which is how loss making Speedlink services were supported by the very good profits made pre 1984 from Trainload Coal , and the decent money made from (most) Inter City services supported Regional Railways on top of the PSR Grant for social neccesary services. The imprtant thing to my mind is that managers knew the drivers of cost / revenue and support from the Government. Tended to focus minds just a bit.

They weren't building infrastructure for some noble purpose. They were building it to get people and freight to, and from the mainlines.



The difference, of course being that the service sectors sat underneath the BR board which was able to arrange cross-subsidy between sectors in the traditional manner.

 

[LowLevel]

The East Midlands railway has been treated appallingly for the last 50 years. The Intercity services were an after thought and the local routes were comprehensively destaffed and run down where they weren't closed entirely.

Running them as a package seems to work. They can pool resources (shared management and other back office functions) as well as rolling stock.

I would never consider separating them again. Running them like Anglia as a grouped effort seems far more sensible than having multiple back office teams, staff accommodation etc etc.

The main focus of the new franchise is improving Lincolnshire's lot and that's what needs the most attention. I suspect with more commuting in and out of towns and awful roads that if you provide the trains and services on the remaining routes usage will increase hugely - it's been going up already regardless and the peak time rail service can no longer manage.

 

[Chester1]

On the stock side I still believe it would be possible for all of the HSTs to be withdrawn at the very end of the year with only minor reductions in service elsewhere (to allow electric trains to take over from diesels on not fully electrified routes), but because these reductions would be on the DfTs beloved East Coast mainline and mostly in Scotland they'd prefer for the midland mainline to remain needlessly inaccessible for years to come. If they really wanted they could even give scotrail extra HSTs and a much shorter derogation to cover all, except a handful of parliamentarys, of the services effected.
It is completely unacceptable that the 91s and Mark 4s are being withdrawn before the last HST anywhere on the network.

Something could be done and would be worthwhile with the time it will take to get new stock ordered and into service. Looking at TfWs plan, DB Cargo have 11 class 67s in storage and could probably find alternatives to free up more to lease to run Mark IV sets. 2 class 67s and 8 Mark IVs should be a bit faster than the 2+8 HSTs. 12 x 67s and 96 x Mark IVs would be enough for 5 sets to run an hourly London-Nottingham with 1 spare set. That would allow 6 out of 15 HSTs to go off lease. When Corby wires switch on more Meridians can be switched to allow more (3?) HSTs to go off lease. The HSTs could then be the first to be replaced by bi modes, the Mark IVs and then the Meridians.

 

[DanTrain]

Something could be done and would be worthwhile with the time it will take to get new stock ordered and into service. Looking at TfWs plan, DB Cargo have 11 class 67s in storage and could probably find alternatives to free up more to lease to run Mark IV sets. 2 class 67s and 8 Mark IVs should be a bit faster than the 2+8 HSTs. 12 x 67s and 96 x Mark IVs would be enough for 5 sets to run an hourly London-Nottingham with 1 spare set. That would allow 6 out of 15 HSTs to go off lease. When Corby wires switch on more Meridians can be switched to allow more (3?) HSTs to go off lease. The HSTs could then be the first to be replaced by bi modes, the Mark IVs and then the Meridians.

Now here’s a fairly sensible suggestion! Can 67s do 125 with reasonable fuel efficiency or would that cause economical problems? Also driver training would be a drain on resources, but if some were brought in early this could be done beforehand rather than a Northern/Thameslink style farce. Also, what about some 68s if they were available, I know they’re slower but increased acceleration compared to a HST ought to make up the difference.

Please don’t tell me to put my crayons away

 

[LOL The Irony]

Now here’s a fairly sensible suggestion! Can 67s do 125 with reasonable fuel efficiency or would that cause economical problems? Also driver training would be a drain on resources, but if some were brought in early this could be done beforehand rather than a Northern/Thameslink style farce. Also, what about some 68s if they were available, I know they’re slower but increased acceleration compared to a HST ought to make up the difference.

Please don’t tell me to put my crayons away

The TPE 68's would just need a software update to do 125.

 

[DanTrain]

The TPE 68's would just need a software update to do 125.

Didn’t know that. Unfortunately they’re needed on TPE, but you could always build some more, maybe even some bi-mode 88s to be reconfigured for other duties when 802s or similar arrive. Then again there’s no way that’d actually happen...

 

[The Box Photter]

You're revising history a little bit there.

When the railways were first built and run, this was all done by private companies taking commercial risks - they didn't intend services to be unprofitable, they didn't do it for some worth notion of Public Service, they did it because they thought they would make profits from doing things faster and more efficiently than canals etc had managed in the past.

Now, personally, I'm all for merged franchises, I think that East Midlands Trains is a good shape of franchise, I don't want to go back to the days of snooty InterCity operators like GNER that would rather run branded coach services than put their passengers onto connecting "Provincial" trains. I think that EMT have been able to share their limited resources for thinks like HSTs to Skegness in the summer and Lincoln in December - I think it works. I just object to the idea that those Victorian entrepreneurs were building infrastructure for some noble purpose (like the public libraries and other amenities of the time) - they were in it for the money - filthy filthy profit - and good luck to them - but nowadays they are painted as acting like the wettest of Social Workers trying to do nice things for everybody.

That's kind of true, but the railway barons made a lot of money out of the shareholders who put up the money for the speculative and often opportunistic new railway lines. Sometimes the schemes prospered and the shareholders saw a return, but sometimes the schemes didn't do so well (often because they duplicated other more established lines) and the shareholders lost their shirts. Don't forget that George Hudson "The Railway King" eventually came a financial cropper.

In addition, the original railway companies and the "big four" made most of their money from freight and general carriage. They were the Amazon and Microsoft of their day. If you needed to move anything over a long distance the only real option was to send it by the railway.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The East Midlands railway has been treated appallingly for the last 50 years. The Intercity services were an after thought and the local routes were comprehensively destaffed and run down where they weren't closed entirely.

Running them as a package seems to work. They can pool resources (shared management and other back office functions) as well as rolling stock.

I would never consider separating them again. Running them like Anglia as a grouped effort seems far more sensible than having multiple back office teams, staff accommodation etc etc.

The main focus of the new franchise is improving Lincolnshire's lot and that's what needs the most attention. I suspect with more commuting in and out of towns and awful roads that if you provide the trains and services on the remaining routes usage will increase hugely - it's been going up already regardless and the peak time rail service can no longer manage.

An extremely good post , and I agree , someone once said that the Midland Main Line was the A5 of the railway.....I do agree that it is time that the Lincs area needs some attention - it was resourced not that long ago by about 13 vehicles ! - mostly 153's , frugally spread out....

 

[Qwerty133]

The East Midlands railway has been treated appallingly for the last 50 years. The Intercity services were an after thought and the local routes were comprehensively destaffed and run down where they weren't closed entirely.

Running them as a package seems to work. They can pool resources (shared management and other back office functions) as well as rolling stock.

I would never consider separating them again. Running them like Anglia as a grouped effort seems far more sensible than having multiple back office teams, staff accommodation etc etc.

The main focus of the new franchise is improving Lincolnshire's lot and that's what needs the most attention. I suspect with more commuting in and out of towns and awful roads that if you provide the trains and services on the remaining routes usage will increase hugely - it's been going up already regardless and the peak time rail service can no longer manage.

I'm afraid that if it meant the Matlock/Crewe/Skegness/Ivanhoe services could be properly resourced I would not be against the total closure of the other Lincolnshire branches as it would be better to have a smaller number of useful services than a larger number of services none of which are really adequate.

 

[LLivery]

Not sure what's just happened but for once I see we are both in full agreement

As to the franchise services although I guess it's a franchise commitment but why did they have the Corby services call at Luton while the Semi Fast Nottingham services call at Luton Airport Parkway?

Could the new franchise shake up their services and instead have the newly EMU operated services to Corby stop at Luton Airport Parkway instead and have the semi fast Nottingham services call at Luton instead?

Could the Corby services also stop at St Albans, I know they have 6 TL services a hour btw...

I've always assumed this was for connectivity. It's well used for people from the Midlands getting to and from the Airport. I can understand the wish for Luton to have more services to Leicester, Notts, etc., but LAP would surely sustain more passengers. It's also less of a bother for people in Luton to go to Airport Parkway and get a train north, than Airport passengers with luggage changing at Luton.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm afraid that if it meant the Matlock/Crewe/Skegness/Ivanhoe services could be properly resourced I would not be against the total closure of the other Lincolnshire branches as it would be better to have a smaller number of useful services than a larger number of services none of which are really adequate.

Ironically out of the summer the Skegness line is the quietest of the lot except Grantham to Nottingham.

The DfT evidently see Doncaster to Lincoln as a future strategic link as it's going hourly. The same with Lincoln to Grimsby.

The morning trains from Sleaford to Lincoln are full and standing with 2 coaches.

My point is the opposite of what you're saying - they're not unused backwaters any more.

The whole lot wants properly resourcing. Taking the Welsh 158s and Anglia 156s on board would be enough to be truly transformational for the whole area. You would have enough slack in the fleet to give them a proper refurbishment, fit modern alternators and heating systems etc as well as see off the 153s.

 

[Qwerty133]

Ironically out of the summer the Skegness line is the quietest of the lot except Grantham to Nottingham.

The DfT evidently see Doncaster to Lincoln as a future strategic link as it's going hourly. The same with Lincoln to Grimsby.

The morning trains from Sleaford to Lincoln are full and standing with 2 coaches.

My point is the opposite of what you're saying - they're not unused backwaters any more.

The whole lot wants properly resourcing. Taking the Welsh 158s and Anglia 156s on board would be enough to be truly transformational for the whole area. You would have enough slack in the fleet to give them a proper refurbishment, fit modern alternators and heating systems etc as well as see off the 153s.

If and when there is the capacity so that all of the lines have sufficient capacity improvements I completely understand the argument for improved services within Lincolnshire but in the much more likely outcome that the stock available to the franchise will not increase for at least a few years I think something has to be done that reduces the number of services the stock is spread across. In my view it would be better for everyone if the majority of lines received a consistently decent service with a small number of lines being mothballed to provide additional stock rather than the resources continue to be spread way too thinly leading to a below acceptable level of service on nearly every line. Due to the erratic service pattern on many of the Lincolnshire services to me at least these seem the least worse services to put on hold especially if they can be replaced by a reliable clock face bus service.

 

[LowLevel]

If and when there is the capacity so that all of the lines have sufficient capacity improvements I completely understand the argument for improved services within Lincolnshire but in the much more likely outcome that the stock available to the franchise will not increase for at least a few years I think something has to be done that reduces the number of services the stock is spread across. In my view it would be better for everyone if the majority of lines received a consistently decent service with a small number of lines being mothballed to provide additional stock rather than the resources continue to be spread way too thinly leading to a below acceptable level of service on nearly every line. Due to the erratic service pattern on many of the Lincolnshire services to me at least these seem the least worse services to put on hold especially if they can be replaced by a reliable clock face bus service.

The reason the Lincs lines have an erratic service is because of 1990s rolling stock shortages and the need to transport large numbers of children at school times.

I disagree entirely that any services are appropriate for being bustituted.

If the new franchisee has for example done a deal for the Anglia 156s they could be available this year. It'll all become clear in April hopefully but one thing that does concern me is the need in short to medium term to resource Liverpool to Norwich until/If it's split. This means the 2 periods of the franchise operation will have significantly different rolling stock requirements.

 

[Jozhua]

Does anyone know if DFT will push for driver operated doors in the new East Midlands franchise as well? Seems to have gone down a treat in the North, with strikes every weekend for near enough 6-months

 

[LowLevel]

Does anyone know if DFT will push for driver operated doors in the new East Midlands franchise as well? Seems to have gone down a treat in the North, with strikes every weekend for near enough 6-months

Who knows. There was nothing at all in the franchise documents to suggest it. There aren't really any routes where eventual removal of train crews are a feasible gain and the infrastructure is variable at best. What will be will be but I'd rather it didn't happen for obvious reasons as it would mean huge amounts of disruption for genuinely little (read no) gain - dwell times on local services aren't really an issue and the IC trains with large amounts of luggage etc won't change much either.

What IS required is for the franchisee to demonstrate a method to be rid of routine overtime working by December 2021 which I will be interested to see how it's proposed to achieve it.

 

[whhistle]

Wouldn't be suprised if EMT end up receiving a derogation for their HST fleet for many years to come, unless the government plans to give them some shiny new 800's or something in the new franchise?

I suspect all the new bids contain details to replace the HST fleet (at least).
I just hope they go with something more Flirt than IET. Bored of seeing IETs everywhere now.

 

[43074]

If and when there is the capacity so that all of the lines have sufficient capacity improvements I completely understand the argument for improved services within Lincolnshire but in the much more likely outcome that the stock available to the franchise will not increase for at least a few years I think something has to be done that reduces the number of services the stock is spread across. In my view it would be better for everyone if the majority of lines received a consistently decent service with a small number of lines being mothballed to provide additional stock rather than the resources continue to be spread way too thinly leading to a below acceptable level of service on nearly every line. Due to the erratic service pattern on many of the Lincolnshire services to me at least these seem the least worse services to put on hold especially if they can be replaced by a reliable clock face bus service.

What on earth are you on about? The more likely outcome is that Anglia 156s can be used to replace the (vast majority of) 153s, plus there are West Midlands 170s available a few years later and new stock is always an option - plus depending when and if Liverpool to Norwich is split there may well be 158s available having been displaced by 185s etc... There's tons of options stock wise, and as for your suggestions for the HSTs to cut LNER services from Aberdeen and Inverness etc

 

[43074]

Something could be done and would be worthwhile with the time it will take to get new stock ordered and into service. Looking at TfWs plan, DB Cargo have 11 class 67s in storage and could probably find alternatives to free up more to lease to run Mark IV sets. 2 class 67s and 8 Mark IVs should be a bit faster than the 2+8 HSTs. 12 x 67s and 96 x Mark IVs would be enough for 5 sets to run an hourly London-Nottingham with 1 spare set. That would allow 6 out of 15 HSTs to go off lease. When Corby wires switch on more Meridians can be switched to allow more (3?) HSTs to go off lease. The HSTs could then be the first to be replaced by bi modes, the Mark IVs and then the Meridians.

67s and Mark IVs would be nowhere near the performance of a HST, let alone being faster than them... I would, if anything, try and procure some 365s to run the Corby service by December 2019, when the electrification will be complete, and cascade some of the 222s to the Nottingham route. Clearly not all of the HSTs could be replaced in this way, but it would help reduce the dependence on them at the very least.

 

[hooverboy]

67s and Mark IVs would be nowhere near the performance of a HST, let alone being faster than them... I would, if anything, try and procure some 365s to run the Corby service by December 2019, when the electrification will be complete, and cascade some of the 222s to the Nottingham route. Clearly not all of the HSTs could be replaced in this way, but it would help reduce the dependence on them at the very least.

what about 67+ 7/8*mk4 + 91?
that would basically substitute as a quick replacement bi-mode for HTS sets would it not?
RA should not be a problem as peaks used to thunder down the line many moons ago and they were RA7
i guess from a servicing perspective re-jigged voyagers would be preferable,but depends what comes off lease in time

 

[43074]

what about 67+ 7/8*mk4 + 91?
that would basically substitute as a quick replacement bi-mode would it not?
RA should not be a problem as peaks used to thunder down the line many moons ago and they were RA7

No I don't think it would actually. How does swtching from diesel to electric work? Can you control a 91 from a 67 cab? What impact would the sluggish acceleration of a 67 have on the timetable and likewise their 110mph top speed precisely due to axle loadings? Can Mk4s even be route cleared down the MML, and how do you overcome any issues if not?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The TPE 68's would just need a software update to do 125.

Can you put some bones on that?
100mph designs of what is basically a freight loco don't usually translate into 125mph running at the drop of a hat.
Who else is running Eurolites at 200km/h?
When did NR last approve a diesel loco for 125?

 

[SilentGrade]

what about 67+ 7/8*mk4 + 91?
that would basically substitute as a quick replacement bi-mode for HTS sets would it not?
RA should not be a problem as peaks used to thunder down the line many moons ago and they were RA7
i guess from a servicing perspective re-jigged voyagers would be preferable,but depends what comes off lease in time

The Mk4s are not cleared for the MML and probably never will be unless someone gets the chequebook out for the infrastructure alterations needed.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Can you put some bones on that?
100mph designs of what is basically a freight loco don't usually translate into 125mph running at the drop of a hat.
Who else is running Eurolites at 200km/h?
When did NR last approve a diesel loco for 125?

I was talking about theoretically. People from DRS said they got quite a lot over 100 whilst testing the MK5's at Velim.