East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[DanTrain]

Sorry that wouldn't work. 170s are a fixed 2 or 3 car formation without walk through.

On the section from Liverpool to Sheffield in particular the potential walk through capability of a 4, 6 or even 8 car 158 makes use of all the capacity better than a current 6 coach TPE 185 where one half can be rammed yet there are seats in the other. A trolley is currently able to work through the 4 coach 158s, but not a 6 coach 185.

Well what would you suggess then? Having 158s on a long distance regional route is far from ideal and there isn’t much else around that fits the bill, unless you go loco hauled. Anyway, aren’t TPE supposed to be taking it over with more 185s anyway?

 

[Killingworth]

Well what would you suggess then? Having 158s on a long distance regional route is far from ideal and there isn’t much else around that fits the bill, unless you go loco hauled. Anyway, aren’t TPE supposed to be taking it over with more 185s anyway?

No supposed about it. They want to, they were all geared up to, but the powers that be have clearly decided not. Certainly not yet.

The way the EM franchise has been drawn up suggests they were intending it be at the same time as completion of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme when it looks likely TPE would have 2 tph and Northern 2. That scheme is now delayed until at least 2022.

Probably 18 months ago I spoke to someone from DfT close to northern franchising. From that conversation I felt TPE was far from a done deal. Rolling stock is part of it. The DfT want first class and to offer an at seat catering service. Tricky to offer both in at least 4 coaches with either 158s or 185s!

Who knows, we might yet see refurbished shortened HSTs They did run down the Hope Valley during the Project Rio period.

 

[DanTrain]

Who knows, we might yet see refurbished shortened HSTs They did run down the Hope Valley during the Project Rio period.

That’d be fun, although they’d need SDO, do HSTs do SDO? HSTs in both Liverpool and Norwich would be a new thing too!

This is very unlikely isn’t it, but a nice thought all the same

 

[cactustwirly]

That’d be fun, although they’d need SDO, do HSTs do SDO? HSTs in both Liverpool and Norwich would be a new thing too!

This is very unlikely isn’t it, but a nice thought all the same

Yes, although the EMT HSTs have grandfather rights over the existing routes.
GWR HSTs, and the Angel HSTs have it fitted.

 

[Killingworth]

That’d be fun, although they’d need SDO, do HSTs do SDO? HSTs in both Liverpool and Norwich would be a new thing too!

This is very unlikely isn’t it, but a nice thought all the same

It was said in jest, but if an HST is to be refurbished for another 10 years adding SDO shouldn't be a problem

 

[ashworth]

Well what would you suggess then? Having 158s on a long distance regional route is far from ideal and there isn’t much else around that fits the bill, unless you go loco hauled. Anyway, aren’t TPE supposed to be taking it over with more 185s anyway?

158’s are not perfect, or indeed ideal for the route, but I actually find EMT’s 158’s quite comfortable for long journeys in comparison to some other trains including Cross Country’s Voyagers. The refurbishment and upkeep of them by EMT has been good, but I do think that they are a bit too high density with not enough luggage space. I was very impressed when I travelled on a refurbished GWR 158 recently. SWR seem to use them and 159’s very successfully between Waterloo and Exeter. There are far worse trains for Norwich to Liverpool than 158’s but they must be used as 4 or 6 carriage trains as it’s when they are crowded that they really become inadequate and uncomfortable to travel on for the route.

 

[Chester1]

No supposed about it. They want to, they were all geared up to, but the powers that be have clearly decided not. Certainly not yet.

The way the EM franchise has been drawn up suggests they were intending it be at the same time as completion of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme when it looks likely TPE would have 2 tph and Northern 2. That scheme is now delayed until at least 2022.

Probably 18 months ago I spoke to someone from DfT close to northern franchising. From that conversation I felt TPE was far from a done deal. Rolling stock is part of it. The DfT want first class and to offer an at seat catering service. Tricky to offer both in at least 4 coaches with either 158s or 185s!

Who knows, we might yet see refurbished shortened HSTs They did run down the Hope Valley during the Project Rio period.

Why would they use 185s? They are not obliged to keep more than 29 after April next year and they have the option to get rid of another 15. They could just order more 802s to run on the partially electrified north Transpennine services and use some of the Mark V sets on Liverpool-Nottingham. There is time for a follow on order and the capacity at Newton Aycliffe to build them in the next couple of years. Hitachi urgently need more work for it and would likely offer a good price. There are options to extend Norwich-Nottingham elsewhere.

 

[Killingworth]

Why would they use 185s? They are not obliged to keep more than 29 after April next year and they have the option to get rid of another 15.

The rationale was to run 185s on two services across the Sheffield--Manchester section thereby allowing interchangeability of both units and crews.

 

[Chester1]

The rationale was to run 185s on two services across the Sheffield--Manchester section thereby allowing interchangeability of both units and crews.

From what you have said the DfT have dropped that in favour of an intercity service comparable with TPEs plans for north transpennine.

 

[Killingworth]

From what you have said the DfT have dropped that in favour of an intercity service comparable with TPEs plans for north transpennine.

I wouldn't like to say if there was ever anything sufficiently solid to be dropped. In the absence of anything specific to suggest otherwise I might think all was still up in the air.

 

[Qwerty133]

Sorry that wouldn't work. 170s are a fixed 2 or 3 car formation without walk through.

On the section from Liverpool to Sheffield in particular the potential walk through capability of a 4, 6 or even 8 car 158 makes use of all the capacity better than a current 6 coach TPE 185 where one half can be rammed yet there are seats in the other. A trolley is currently able to work through the 4 coach 158s, but not a 6 coach 185.

Sorry but gangways are a small price to pay for ensuring continuing reliability of the service and the timely replacement of units that are proving increasingly difficult to maintain to the standard needed to operate such a demanding services. Other than the 172s which are tied up in the west midlands for the foreseeable there are literally no newer diesel trains with gangways than the 158s which are simply now at a stage in their lives that continued operation on Liverpool to Norwich is unwise as they can no longer reliably cope with the service and continued operation is probably harming the future lifespan of the stock which could otherwise remain useful for another 15-20 years.

 

[Jozhua]

158’s are not perfect, or indeed ideal for the route, but I actually find EMT’s 158’s quite comfortable for long journeys in comparison to some other trains including Cross Country’s Voyagers. The refurbishment and upkeep of them by EMT has been good, but I do think that they are a bit too high density with not enough luggage space. I was very impressed when I travelled on a refurbished GWR 158 recently. SWR seem to use them and 159’s very successfully between Waterloo and Exeter. There are far worse trains for Norwich to Liverpool than 158’s but they must be used as 4 or 6 carriage trains as it’s when they are crowded that they really become inadequate and uncomfortable to travel on for the route.

This Sunday travelling back from Manchester I had terrible issues trying to stow my luggage on the 158! All the doorways were also blocked.

The high number of seating reservations certainly didn't help things and it took till past Stockport for everyone to finally get somewhat seated! However, I prefer the 158's to the 185's and definitely compared to the Voyagers. EMT have some of the best maintained examples of all types of their trains except the HSTs really...

 

[Killingworth]

Sorry but gangways are a small price to pay for ensuring continuing reliability of the service and the timely replacement of units that are proving increasingly difficult to maintain to the standard needed to operate such a demanding services. Other than the 172s which are tied up in the west midlands for the foreseeable there are literally no newer diesel trains with gangways than the 158s which are simply now at a stage in their lives that continued operation on Liverpool to Norwich is unwise as they can no longer reliably cope with the service and continued operation is probably harming the future lifespan of the stock which could otherwise remain useful for another 15-20 years.

Personally I like both 158s ad 185s as a standard class passenger. I may use either on trips to Manchester. At present I prefer the 158s with 4 cars of standard class to a 185 with about 2.6 and having to stand all the way, clambering over luggage and bikes.

I'll be using a lightly loaded 185 on Friday to trundle towards Grimsby. It's a totally different experience.

The fragmented railway has far too many classes of trains spread among many ever changing TOCs, and owned by competitive ROSCOs. In a rationally organised system we'd have standard coaches hauled by standard locomotives with total interchangeability, and be able to add extra coaches as required - possibly that was tried and didn't work!

 

[Jozhua]

As much as I love talking/moaning about the quality of the Hope Valley Line, does anyone know if DaFT is going to include driver operated doors as a requirement for the new franchise or one of the new TOCs will make a move for it?

I'm not against the system per say, I'm just concerned about the fact it will likely result in a standoff between the rail union and the TOC in which no effort will be made to resolve by either side and inevitably the real losers are the passengers. *ahem*Northern*ahem*

 

[yorksrob]

This Sunday travelling back from Manchester I had terrible issues trying to stow my luggage on the 158! All the doorways were also blocked.

The high number of seating reservations certainly didn't help things and it took till past Stockport for everyone to finally get somewhat seated! However, I prefer the 158's to the 185's and definitely compared to the Voyagers. EMT have some of the best maintained examples of all types of their trains except the HSTs really...

I would say their HST's are the best as well.

 

[43074]

As much as I love talking/moaning about the quality of the Hope Valley Line, does anyone know if DaFT is going to include driver operated doors as a requirement for the new franchise or one of the new TOCs will make a move for it?

The requirement is that any new trains have to be DOO compatible but it is not specified in the way that it was for Northern for instance where it had to be introduced for a certain proportion of train mileage. Whether any of the bidders choose to implement it is another matter, we won't know that for a while yet and even then we'll only know what the winning bidder chooses to do.

 

[LowLevel]

As much as I love talking/moaning about the quality of the Hope Valley Line, does anyone know if DaFT is going to include driver operated doors as a requirement for the new franchise or one of the new TOCs will make a move for it?

I'm not against the system per say, I'm just concerned about the fact it will likely result in a standoff between the rail union and the TOC in which no effort will be made to resolve by either side and inevitably the real losers are the passengers. *ahem*Northern*ahem*

Nobody knows. Probably easiest to just expect the service to be destroyed for a while if it is included - not something I like the prospect of but there you go.

 

[Jozhua]

The requirement is that any new trains have to be DOO compatible but it is not specified in the way that it was for Northern for instance where it had to be introduced for a certain proportion of train mileage. Whether any of the bidders choose to implement it is another matter, we won't know that for a while yet and even then we'll only know what the winning bidder chooses to do.

Hopefully the bidders come to their senses and realise not to take on the rail unions! On a lot of the rural EMT routes they'd lose out on far more profit not selling tickets as the ticket machines on the stations don't work half the time...

As for the high speed routes, they typically employ at least 3 people on each train anyway so any cost savings would be minimal.

I look forward to coming back to Derbyshire as I can actually enjoy a reliable service so I'm praying that remains so...

 

[yorksrob]

Hopefully the bidders come to their senses and realise not to take on the rail unions! On a lot of the rural EMT routes they'd lose out on far more profit not selling tickets as the ticket machines on the stations don't work half the time...

As for the high speed routes, they typically employ at least 3 people on each train anyway so any cost savings would be minimal.

I look forward to coming back to Derbyshire as I can actually enjoy a reliable service so I'm praying that remains so...

The same logic should have applied to Northern, but here we are....

It's a sad state of affairs that people in all over the country are routinely expecting to have their train service destroyed everytime a franchise comes up for renewal.

 

[Jozhua]

The same logic should have applied to Northern, but here we are....

It's a sad state of affairs that people in all over the country are routinely expecting to have their train service destroyed everytime a franchise comes up for renewal.

Maybe franchises shouldn't be renewed? If an operator is found to offer a good, reliable service to passengers maybe they should just get extensions as long as they continue to provide that?

Each extension could bring opportunities to make alterations to the franchise every couple of years, such as new rolling stock, routes etc...

It could incentivise the operator to ensure they are providing a good, reliable service to passengers at all times and investing in their network, as if they do, they get to keep it.

If another operator has a better track record and offers a more competitive service, they could take the franchise at one of the renewals?

But that's just a theory... A train theory...

 

[cactustwirly]

The same logic should have applied to Northern, but here we are....

It's a sad state of affairs that people in all over the country are routinely expecting to have their train service destroyed everytime a franchise comes up for renewal.

Because the DfT told Northern to operate DCO services.

I don't see why you get that impression, it's got nothing to do with franchise renewals, and everything to do with big dinosaur trade unions that resist change!

 

[DanDaDriver]

Because the DfT told Northern to operate DCO services.

I don't see why you get that impression, it's got nothing to do with franchise renewals, and everything to do with big dinosaur trade unions that resist change!

Because the government has absolutely nothing but your best interest at heart...

 

[cactustwirly]

Because the government has absolutely nothing but your best interest at heart...

Yes it does, well more than a trade union anyway!

 

[DanDaDriver]

Yes it does, well more than a trade union anyway!

Have you ever been in a trade union, or just conducted extensive research via the Daily Mail?

I appreciate the Northern thing must be awful for passengers (and I don’t personally agree with the way it’s being done) but I’m genuinely curious at how you think the government (of any colour nowadays) is more closely aligned with your interested then a collective of working people?

Unless you’re a millionaire, in which case it’s understandable.

 

[cactustwirly]

Have you ever been in a trade union, or just conducted extensive research via the Daily Mail?

I appreciate the Northern thing must be awful for passengers (and I don’t personally agree with the way it’s being done) but I’m genuinely curious at how you think the government (of any colour nowadays) is more closely aligned with your interested then a collective of working people?

Unless you’re a millionaire, in which case it’s understandable.

I don't even read the Daily Mail actually!
The Government exists to serve the people, and a Trade Union exists to serve the employees!
I don't see how organisations such as the RMT benefit the passengers, as all they do is cause huge disruption, over who opens the doors!

 

[Tomnick]

I don't even read the Daily Mail actually!
The Government exists to serve the people, and a Trade Union exists to serve the employees!
I don't see how organisations such as the RMT benefit the passengers, as all they do is cause huge disruption, over who opens the doors!

I want a well staffed, safe and reliable railway that offers a decent service to the passengers that I interact with every day, as does my union.

The government wants to run the railway as cheaply as possible.

Which do you think you have more in common with?

(P.S., although it must’ve been stated hundreds of times on here by now, the guards’ role involves far more than just opening doors...)

 

[Robertj21a]

Hopefully the bidders come to their senses and realise not to take on the rail unions! On a lot of the rural EMT routes they'd lose out on far more profit not selling tickets as the ticket machines on the stations don't work half the time...

As for the high speed routes, they typically employ at least 3 people on each train anyway so any cost savings would be minimal.

I look forward to coming back to Derbyshire as I can actually enjoy a reliable service so I'm praying that remains so...

Hopefully, the rail unions will finally realise that they don't run the country, or dictate to employers how they should run the business.

 

[DanDaDriver]

[QUOTE="Robertj21a, post: 3830835, member: 22172] or dictate to employers how they should run the business.[/QUOTE]

Whilst that’s partly true, I assume you don’t have sick or holiday pay? Work 6 1/2 days a week for less than minimum wage? 18hr days? Because that’s how your employer wants you to work?

 

[sprinterguy]

158s which are simply now at a stage in their lives that continued operation on Liverpool to Norwich is unwise as they can no longer reliably cope with the service and continued operation is probably harming the future lifespan of the stock which could otherwise remain useful for another 15-20 years.

I'm not sure where this idea that one of the most reliable Sprinter fleets in the country is ailing stems from. If they were struggling with operating the route the reliability figures would reflect this, but as it is they're recording figures 50% better than the next best 158 fleet, which is Northern's. Reliability is also improving year on year.

Having 158s on a long distance regional route is far from ideal

Eh? Class 158s were built for long distance regional routes such as Liverpool - Norwich, and the EMT units have been thoroughly refurbished to a modern standard. There's no diesel stock that been built since that offers the same operational flexibility (Through corridors on splitting/joining services), high capacity per carriage, decent acceleration and comparatively low axle weight.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe franchises shouldn't be renewed? If an operator is found to offer a good, reliable service to passengers maybe they should just get extensions as long as they continue to provide that?

Each extension could bring opportunities to make alterations to the franchise every couple of years, such as new rolling stock, routes etc...

It could incentivise the operator to ensure they are providing a good, reliable service to passengers at all times and investing in their network, as if they do, they get to keep it.

If another operator has a better track record and offers a more competitive service, they could take the franchise at one of the renewals?

But that's just a theory... A train theory...

That would make things a lot easier for contracting authorities, in a lot of fields, not just railways. I think the preference is for maximum length contracts, although Gmt can get around this with the right excuse.