Rolling stock - what if the MML had been electrified?

[Topological]

OK in which case we'd quickly get to the situation LNWR have had where 5-abreast 350 ended up used interchangeably with other 350 fleets, utterly defeating the point of having 2 different configurations.


I think this would be politically unacceptable. Imagine you're Secretary of State for Transport. You have to ring the MPs and other politicians along the route that their service was being "upgraded" from 125 mph intercity trains to 110mph commuter trains. How do you think that will go?

I like the optimism on politics.

The answer would be "We have added x% extra seats" (by not having the crashworthiness at the ends needed for 125mph), "we have reduced emissions by " (versus the 125mph diesels" and maybe (but highly unlikely) "it was the other lot who wasted money on the 125 when the saving is only one minute and we are able to deliver extra capacity and reduced emissions"

Ultimately the story would run for a day, before someone remembers the M1 is a mess and there are boats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The answer would be "We have added x% extra seats" (by not having the crashworthiness at the ends needed for 125mph), "we have reduced emissions by " (versus the 125mph diesels" and maybe (but highly unlikely) "it was the other lot who wasted money on the 125 when the saving is only one minute and we are able to deliver extra capacity and reduced emissions"

Add "the end gangways also mean you can more easily move through the train to find a seat and if you need help from staff they can more easily get to you", and "the wide gangways between coaches help you move around with your luggage and make the train more accessible to all". Plus "we've increased the size of our fleet significantly" (because bog standard EMUs are cheaper than fancy pointy nosed 125mph units).

There are lots of good things you could say about a 730/2 with a few seats taken out, 2+1 in first, a microwave for the hot food and a couple of bigger luggage racks added. I'd take it over a stinking old Voyager derivative with far too little capacity due to the inefficient interior layout.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

If they were replacing the pendolinos, instead of replacing the voyagers and being extra, I think the response would have been different.

They have replaced Pendolinos on the Liverpool services. The only moans I've heard there are about the first class being inferior (pick better seats then) and the trains being shorter (getting the message across that each vehicle is 2m longer and more efficiently laid out is difficult, I'm waiting for the moans about 10 instead of 12 coach trains on the MKC locals which will no doubt come at some point! ).

 

[Topological]

Add "the end gangways also mean you can more easily move through the train to find a seat and if you need help from staff they can more easily get to you", and "the wide gangways between coaches help you move around with your luggage and make the train more accessible to all". Plus "we've increased the size of our fleet significantly" (because bog standard EMUs are cheaper than fancy pointy nosed 125mph units).

There are lots of good things you could say about a 730/2 with a few seats taken out, 2+1 in first, a microwave for the hot food and a couple of bigger luggage racks added. I'd take it over a stinking old Voyager derivative with far too little capacity due to the inefficient interior layout.

Then the following week when the Pendolinos become free - "We are increasing speeds to 125mph and delivering journey time savings"

I don't know why people think there is such a thing as "politically acceptable". Politicians spin more than a 80x generator.

Votes in elections are not about railways so the MML will get what it gets.

(I am sure there are only 125mph capable 810s because that is the platform the other lines got and it is easier than designing a 110mph bi-mode for a small order)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(I am sure there are only 125mph capable 810s because that is the platform the other lines got and it is easier than designing a 110mph bi-mode for a small order)

TPE 80x certainly spend most of their time nowhere near 125 (though it is handy for pathing on the ECML)! Yes, it's an off the shelf bimode, though sadly the 810s have proven otherwise. But we are talking about an alternate reality here in which bimodes are not necessary because the MML has been electrified. I suppose we can take it as "let's say electrification would be going live in 2026, what have we got on order?"

 

[Topological]

TPE 80x certainly spend most of their time nowhere near 125 (though it is handy for pathing on the ECML)! Yes, it's an off the shelf bimode, though sadly the 810s have proven otherwise. But we are talking about an alternate reality here in which bimodes are not necessary because the MML has been electrified. I suppose we can take it as "let's say electrification would be going live in 2026, what have we got on order?"

It was @Trainbike46 who brought the 810s into it

In the TPE case the 125 on the ECML does make sense (not sure they get to use 125 on any WCML sections), though again I am not sure 80x is the best format for Liverpool - X - Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds - York (that's a much more regular stopping pattern) so it makes sense that most TPE trains are not 80x.

I wonder if the 345s from Anglia might be the answer (if ordering today) because then they can add "level boarding" to the list of benefits.

 

[zwk500]

TPE 80x certainly spend most of their time nowhere near 125 (though it is handy for pathing on the ECML)! Yes, it's an off the shelf bimode, though sadly the 810s have proven otherwise. But we are talking about an alternate reality here in which bimodes are not necessary because the MML has been electrified. I suppose we can take it as "let's say electrification would be going live in 2026, what have we got on order?"

Of course that depends on what the limits of electrification would have been, and whether EMR/DfT wanted to retain the ability to divert over non-electrified lines. Assuming St Pancras-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield and Trent Jns-Nottingham but not via Alfreton or Barrow Hill (i.e. what MMLE was planning to deliver), it's very possible BMMUs would still have been chosen, or possibly BEMUs, rather than than EMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if the 345s from Anglia might be the answer (if ordering today) because then they can add "level boarding" to the list of benefits.

I find the interior design of the UK FLIRTs rather clumsy to be honest, so I'm inclined to say not. I'm very much interested to see what the level boarding offering from other manufacturers for the Northern and GWR tenders is going to look like - Stadler do have a very distinctive design approach which while I like it on the European mainland doesn't seem to be squashing into the UK loading gauge particularly well.

Of course the GA and TfW regional units are such an improvement on rotting 150s and 156s it's hard not to like them (though I'd struggle to say the 777s were any good - technically a METRO of course but using a lot of FLIRT derived components), but less so as an intercity train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

Of course that depends on what the limits of electrification would have been, and whether EMR/DfT wanted to retain the ability to divert over non-electrified lines. Assuming St Pancras-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield and Trent Jns-Nottingham but not via Alfreton or Barrow Hill (i.e. what MMLE was planning to deliver), it's very possible BMMUs would still have been chosen, or possibly BEMUs, rather than than EMUs.

I think it's more likely in a scenario where the MML was done to Sheffield and Nottingham that the key diversionary routes would also have been done as they now have on the WCML (e.g. Bescot).

 

[Topological]

I find the interior design of the UK FLIRTs rather clumsy to be honest, so I'm inclined to say not. I'm very much interested to see what the level boarding offering from other manufacturers for the Northern and GWR tenders is going to look like - Stadler do have a very distinctive design approach which while I like it on the European mainland doesn't seem to be squashing into the UK loading gauge particularly well.

Of course the GA and TfW regional units are such an improvement on rotting 150s and 156s it's hard not to like them (though I'd struggle to say the 777s were any good - technically a METRO of course but using a lot of FLIRT derived components), but less so as an intercity train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==



I think it's more likely in a scenario where the MML was done to Sheffield and Nottingham that the key diversionary routes would also have been done as they now have on the WCML (e.g. Bescot).

I have never been on a flirt and the last time I was on the GAML the progress was that the ex-WCML Mk3s had been introduced with Class 90s. However, I think I did use one on a Stansted Express because that train had all the ups and downs between carriages. Whatever I took to Stansted was nice.

IF the MML was fully electrified I think that Erewash and via Barrow Hill would be done, but Manton would not. Leicester to Kettering would be bustituted in the case of disruption. Yes that would be a loss of resilience, but it is no different to the WCML not having any electrified diversions north of Preston, or the ECML north of York.

 

[eldomtom2]

So would MML electrification have come before ECML, I cant see any scenario where that would have happened, could/should it have followed on from ECML electrification, yes, but thats politics not common sense.

The 1981 DfT/BR report on electrification placed electrifying the MML to Leeds and the ECML to Newcastle as the highest priority for future electrification, so there's a plausible scenario where the MML was electrified before the ECML was fully electrified.

 

[zwk500]

I think it's more likely in a scenario where the MML was done to Sheffield and Nottingham that the key diversionary routes would also have been done as they now have on the WCML (e.g. Bescot).

Not a chance in today's political financial climate.

 

[Trainbike46]

They have replaced Pendolinos on the Liverpool services. The only moans I've heard there are about the first class being inferior (pick better seats then) and the trains being shorter (getting the message across that each vehicle is 2m longer and more efficiently laid out is difficult, I'm waiting for the moans about 10 instead of 12 coach trains on the MKC locals which will no doubt come at some point! ).

And there has been moaning about the 80x taking over from Pendolinos on Liverpool, though from my point of view it's an improvement as I don't like the pendolinos.

In the long term, this will be less of an issue as the full 2 tph service rolls out further, my understanding is some extra services in september, and some more in December, which will be good.

I didn't see the 10v12 moans on GA when they made the same switch, but then, most of that switch happened during COVID!

It was @Trainbike46 who brought the 810s into it

I mean, in a thread on MML IC stock they are pretty relevant!

In the TPE case the 125 on the ECML does make sense (not sure they get to use 125 on any WCML sections), though again I am not sure 80x is the best format for Liverpool - X - Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds - York (that's a much more regular stopping pattern) so it makes sense that most TPE trains are not 80x.

I wonder if the 345s from Anglia might be the answer (if ordering today) because then they can add "level boarding" to the list of benefits.

Assuming you mean the 745s, I like them, as much as Bletchleyite disagrees (I think we may have more or less opposite priorities in some ways!)

I find the interior design of the UK FLIRTs rather clumsy to be honest, so I'm inclined to say not. I'm very much interested to see what the level boarding offering from other manufacturers for the Northern and GWR tenders is going to look like - Stadler do have a very distinctive design approach which while I like it on the European mainland doesn't seem to be squashing into the UK loading gauge particularly well.

Of course the GA and TfW regional units are such an improvement on rotting 150s and 156s it's hard not to like them (though I'd struggle to say the 777s were any good - technically a METRO of course but using a lot of FLIRT derived components), but less so as an intercity train.

There are some interesting choices on the 777s, including the decisions regarding PIS, but overall I think they're fine. I only every use Merseyrail on Liverpool-Birkenhead-Chester, outside of peak times, so maybe there's issues I just don't see.

I like the 745s though, and I think they're a perfectly good IC unit. I'd hope a new order would improve on them further, but that is true for literally every single train on the BR network.

 

[QSK19]

I think this would be politically unacceptable. Imagine you're Secretary of State for Transport. You have to ring the MPs and other politicians along the route that their service was being "upgraded" from 125 mph intercity trains to 110mph commuter trains. How do you think that will go?

As much as it pains me to say this, I don’t think the SoS would give two hoots. Rather than trying to justify the change, the SoS would simply tell the MPs that’s what they’re getting whether they like it or not (or even the SoS won’t bother to engage with them at all).

The MML has always been seen as a second-rate railway and the poor relation of the various mainline siblings; so I couldn’t see the SoS giving the MPs any meaningful opportunity for dialogue.

 

[stevieinselby]

I think this would be politically unacceptable. Imagine you're Secretary of State for Transport. You have to ring the MPs and other politicians along the route that their service was being "upgraded" from 125 mph intercity trains to 110mph commuter trains. How do you think that will go?

I have not heard an awful lot of negative publicity about the 80x on the WCML only running at 110. I've heard lots about shiny new trains.

What people care about is overcrowding and price, by and large.

One key difference is that the 80x fleet (a) are 125mph trains, and (2) look like they are 125mph trains. The minutiae that there may be sections of the route where they can't run as fast as the older trains is likely to be lost on politicians and members of the public, unless they start to see journey times noticeably extended. But replacing intercity trains with commuter trains is different. There were a lot of complaints from passengers from Corby and Wellingborough when EMR Connect started using the 360s instead of the more comfortable 222s that passengers were used to. If it feels like a step-down in quality and service provision then passengers will notice and will complain.

(We had a similar thing when TPX replaced their 90mph 158s with 100mph 185s, but because the 185s are lardy beasts that can't use SP limits, there are significant sections of the routes to Hull and Scarbados in particular where they are slower than the old trains that they replaced. But no-one normal knows or cares that there are a few sections of the line where they might be running 5, 10 or even 15mph slower than before, because the speed limits are all over the place anyway, and they weren't any slower for end-to-end journeys than before).

 

[QSK19]

There is also the point of the level of fare paid for a journey - if passengers are paying IC level fares, then they do not expect nor deserve a downgrade on rolling stock. Therefore, 730s, 350s, etc, are not acceptable as 222 replacements.

As I have said before, even if a service is only 20 minutes long, if the fares are IC-level, then passengers must get IC rolling stock and comfort. Therefore, the much-peddled argument of “it’s only 2 hours to Sheffield, people have to do longer journeys on commuter stock” doesn’t stand up.

Fares did not get reduced when Connect went from an IC train to effectively a regional express one; so passengers had every right to complain when the 360s started running. At least the refurbishment should make the accommodation somewhat befitting for the fares paid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is also the point of the level of fare paid for a journey - if passengers are paying IC level fares, then they do not expect nor deserve a downgrade on rolling stock. Therefore, 730s, 350s, etc, are not acceptable as 222 replacements.

On what basis? Door position prejudice?

I'm presently sat in the "first class" area of a 730/2. As Standard Class it is as good as it gets - certainly better than 222 Standard, and more than suitable for the Highland Chieftain, let alone a 2 hour Sheffield run. Nobody in this thread is proposing replacing 222s with 3+2 seated commuter layout units even if that did happen south of Leicester to some.

 

[QSK19]

On what basis? Door position prejudice?

I'm presently sat in the "first class" area of a 730/2. As Standard Class it is as good as it gets - certainly better than 222 Standard, and more than suitable for the Highland Chieftain, let alone a 2 hour Sheffield run. Nobody in this thread is proposing replacing 222s with 3+2 seated commuter layout units even if that did happen south of Leicester to some.

As I wrote, on the basis that passengers are paying IC level fares - so they require IC stock, service and comfort.

Door prejudice isn’t an issue for me - so long as the comfort and service is of an IC level, that’s fine for me. At a push, a 350/360/444/745/755 sort of train would do; but there must not be any scrimping on facilities - anything less than a 222/810 spec would be a disgrace*… unless fares are reduced accordingly.

But unfortunately, I doubt the DfT would want to spec a regional express train with IC facilities for the MML (that’s my feeling, not based on evidence). The 360 refurbishment proves that - it’ll no doubt be a good upgrade, but not quite hitting the mark of the 810s. Yet Connect passengers still pay the same level of fare.

(* very happy for you remarking that nobody would propose a downgrade in accommodation btw )

 

[Topological]

What has been the tangible result of complaints about 360s taking over on the Corby trains? Are less passengers using the stations?

Whilst it is not nice to think that services are downgraded, as long as the revenues stay constant then a cost saving on stock justifies itself.

Any EMU-isation of the MML would presumably have followed the Anglia model and not induced mutiny.

 

[stevieinselby]

What has been the tangible result of complaints about 360s taking over on the Corby trains? Are less passengers using the stations?

Whilst it is not nice to think that services are downgraded, as long as the revenues stay constant then a cost saving on stock justifies itself.

Very difficult to isolate the impact of the 360s among other changes – they were introduced at the same time as the frequency to Corby was doubled, and the service to stations on the mainline was changed.

Comparing usage from 2018/19 to 2023/24, we see the following changes:
Corby - 0.30m to 0.50m
Kettering - 1.03m to 1.06m
Wellingborough - 0.92m to 0.87m

Corby's significant increase can be largely attributed to the increased level of service from hourly to half-hourly.
Kettering saw an improvement from two unevenly spaced trains per hour to a half-hourly fast and a half-hourly slow, with the fast trains continuing to use the intercity fleet.
Wellingborough saw an improvement from two unevenly spaced trains per hour to an even half-hourly service, but with the trains downgraded from 222 to 360.

To me, that suggests that the new trains might well have deterred some passengers from travelling, but it's unlikely to have had a huge impact and doesn't seem to have offset the improved level of service.

 

[Topological]

Very difficult to isolate the impact of the 360s among other changes – they were introduced at the same time as the frequency to Corby was doubled, and the service to stations on the mainline was changed.

Comparing usage from 2018/19 to 2023/24, we see the following changes:
Corby - 0.30m to 0.50m
Kettering - 1.03m to 1.06m
Wellingborough - 0.92m to 0.87m

Corby's significant increase can be largely attributed to the increased level of service from hourly to half-hourly.
Kettering saw an improvement from two unevenly spaced trains per hour to a half-hourly fast and a half-hourly slow, with the fast trains continuing to use the intercity fleet.
Wellingborough saw an improvement from two unevenly spaced trains per hour to an even half-hourly service, but with the trains downgraded from 222 to 360.

To me, that suggests that the new trains might well have deterred some passengers from travelling, but it's unlikely to have had a huge impact and doesn't seem to have offset the improved level of service.

Thanks for those numbers.

The Wellingborough numbers may suggest a "downgrade" effect, but need to be offset against changes in commuting patterns as well.

Essentially, there is no evidence that people stop travelling because of a "downgrade" in the stock used. Moan, of course, but change behaviour, not really.

 

[bramling]

Very difficult to isolate the impact of the 360s among other changes – they were introduced at the same time as the frequency to Corby was doubled, and the service to stations on the mainline was changed.

Comparing usage from 2018/19 to 2023/24, we see the following changes:
Corby - 0.30m to 0.50m
Kettering - 1.03m to 1.06m
Wellingborough - 0.92m to 0.87m

Corby's significant increase can be largely attributed to the increased level of service from hourly to half-hourly.
Kettering saw an improvement from two unevenly spaced trains per hour to a half-hourly fast and a half-hourly slow, with the fast trains continuing to use the intercity fleet.
Wellingborough saw an improvement from two unevenly spaced trains per hour to an even half-hourly service, but with the trains downgraded from 222 to 360.

To me, that suggests that the new trains might well have deterred some passengers from travelling, but it's unlikely to have had a huge impact and doesn't seem to have offset the improved level of service.

Anecdotally, from what I gather from people I work with who commute on the route, Wellingborough passengers in particular were disgruntled. Some of that was through the loss of peak fast services, and there’s also dissatisfaction that the service is now perceived as being less reliable. Seems that people are still travelling though, they don’t have much realistic alternative - drive to Northampton, Bedford or Huntingdon where the service isn’t massively different.

 

[AY1975]

I think any MML 'timeline' would be mixed up with the ECML and even the WCML. Think back to the early 80's, the ECML had HST's and once the Selby diversion opened journey times to places as far as Newcastle were broadly similar to today, with some limited stop services even quicker than todays best journeys (Yes, Leeds I am pointing at you ). At this time the MML was still a 90mph railway terminating in a very run down St Pancras, and really felt like a poor offering. HST's were then introduced on the MML and speed limits were gradually tweaked with various minor improvements. Journey times improved.

So would MML electrification have come before ECML, I cant see any scenario where that would have happened, could/should it have followed on from ECML electrification, yes, but thats politics not common sense. Had it followed on then my own theory would be that it would have been 87's, Mk3s and DVTs cascaded from the WCML, with a new build of Mk4's or similar with new electric locos for the WCML, as I believe the Mk4 body shell was the shape it was to allow limited tilting. In which case the MML would be a 110mph railway, which is what I believe it was anyway when the HSTs were introduced. The MML would continue to get cast offs from the ECML and WCML as thats the way BR worked.

Or else the MML might have got 86s and Mark 2s cast off from the WCML by the introduction of 90s and the acquisition of ex-ScotRail Mark 3s following the end of ScotRail push-pull services, indeed the MML did get Mark 2 aircons in the mid-1970s that had been reallocated from the WCML after the introduction of Mark 3s as discussed in the thread on the introduction of Mark 2 aircons: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/introduction-of-mark-2-air-conditioned-stock.286812/

 

[InTheEastMids]

Or else the MML might have got 86s and Mark 2s cast off from the WCML by the introduction of 90s and the acquisition of ex-ScotRail Mark 3s following the end of ScotRail push-pull services, indeed the MML did get Mark 2 aircons in the mid-1970s that had been reallocated from the WCML after the introduction of Mark 3s as discussed in the thread on the introduction of Mark 2 aircons: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/introduction-of-mark-2-air-conditioned-stock.286812/

I agree the MMLE had followed directly after the ECML then with the kind of "cascade" thinking at the time, the MMLE would have got WCML cast-offs enabled by new trains on E/WCML, including more 90/91/Mk4 than we ended up with in reality. Either way, going into privatisation, the MML IC service looks like Greater Anglia did at the time. The logic of the original MML Franchise bid would presumably have led to a small fleet of electrostars.

390s on the WCML might have led to some incremental upgrades, with replacement as part of the 2008 franchise competition, or as part of the IEP contract.

 

[QSK19]

Whilst it is not nice to think that services are downgraded, as long as the revenues stay constant then a cost saving on stock justifies itself.

So, theoretically, the DfT could have given EMR a bunch of 319s or 321s destined for the scrap yard and told them to run the Connect service with those? Yet fares would remain at an IC level.

I see your point of view that even throwing the scruffiest 321s onto the route won’t stop people travelling; but it would still be a huge injustice for those to pay their hard-earned money and expect a comfortable service in return - tantamount to being treated as cash cows.

 

[Topological]

So, theoretically, the DfT could have given EMR a bunch of 319s or 321s destined for the scrap yard and told them to run the Connect service with those? Yet fares would remain at an IC level.

I see your point of view that even throwing the scruffiest 321s onto the route won’t stop people travelling; but it would still be a huge injustice for those to pay their hard-earned money and expect a comfortable service in return.

Essentially, yes, they could.

The 360s with a refurbishment plan were not actually that bad (it has taken too long to do the refurbishment, but apparently it is starting soon).

110mph EMUs would not have been that big a step down really, especially if it was from the Mk 3s like Anglia (in the alternative reality that the MML had been electrified a long time ago).

You always hope that cascades will be positive, of course.