East Midlands franchise prospectus

[thenorthern]

As I believe has already been stated the current overheads to Bedford only support 100mph max running, with no plans to upgrade them as things currently stand.

Seems to various comments floating about that the bulk of MML electrification wont be happening any time soon, even some suggestions that Transpennine Electrification wont happen either. Lets face it electrification hasn't just been shafted by Network Rails progress and costs, its been annihilated.

I know the Midland Main Line electrification was postponed after the 2015 election but I don't think a new date has been given for when it will be completed.

 

[Domh245]

As I believe has already been stated the current overheads to Bedford only support 100mph max running, with no plans to upgrade them as things currently stand.

Seems to various comments floating about that the bulk of MML electrification wont be happening any time soon, even some suggestions that Transpennine Electrification wont happen either. Lets face it electrification hasn't just been shafted by Network Rails progress and costs, its been annihilated.

I would point out that the recent Enhancements Delivery Plan has got MML electrification (not excluding Bedford-Kettering/Corby which is a CP5 scheme) as a CP6 output - including "Completion of adjustments to existing Fast Line OLE south of Bedford, increasing the permissible speed for electric trains". So not only are there plans to upgrade them, but there is also a clear plan to do it in conjunction with the rest of the electrification.

 

[kevjs]

Electrification wont happen either. Lets face it electrification hasn't just been shafted by Network Rails progress and costs, its been annihilated.

Isn't that a demonstration of why Bi-modes would be a good thing though - rather than trying to do the MML in one go for a big bang launch (and therefore throwing a load of diesel only stock on the scrapheap), would it not make sense for there to be Bi-Mode trains that can operate under both powers taking more electric as it comes on stream, especially as electrification is already in progress to Kettering? It's not like the old days where you were able to have a "bi-mode" train by replacing the Electric Locomotive with a Diesel one at Preston (al la WCML electrification). As the electrification spreads the Bi-modes can be cascaded to other routes or converted to electric only (or potentially downgraded to somewhere between limp home diesel mode and full diesel capability - e.g. drop to two diesel engines to improve performance on diversion routes without carrying extra weight round 99% of the time for little reason).

Any new HS rolling stock is likely to have a 30+ year lifetime, and we need to remember this is a time-frame during which Norway and France are proposing to ban sales of new ICE cars, Nottingham and London are likely to see creation/extension of Low Emission Zones (with CT4N already using a near all-electric fleet of buses and Nottingham City Transport are introducing Biogas buses to try and combat the high levels of pollution in Nottingham) - the world is turning away from heavily polluting vehicles, and by having a hybrid fleet wiring Derby to Nottingham via East Midlands Parkway would potentially (depending on operational practicalities) allow those cities to be electrified prior to the rest of the line minimising pollution in those areas and improving the station environment.

The FLIRTs on East Anglia similarly offer flexibility - while the East Midlands might not have too many wires now, a platform like the FLIRTs would appear to make it possible to have an all diesel fleet with a pantograph being retrofitted when enough route mileage makes it sensible to do so. Seems daft in this day and age to be buying any 100% diesel stock on services running to and from our major cities.

 

[47802]

I would point out that the recent Enhancements Delivery Plan has got MML electrification (not excluding Bedford-Kettering/Corby which is a CP5 scheme) as a CP6 output - including "Completion of adjustments to existing Fast Line OLE south of Bedford, increasing the permissible speed for electric trains". So not only are there plans to upgrade them, but there is also a clear plan to do it in conjunction with the rest of the electrification.

Well a case of don't shoot the messenger, I'm only quoting what Mr Miles says, and he fairly well in the know and doesn't seem to be wrong often. Its not the first time he has stated that pure diesel solution is being looked at for the MML.

According to him there is currently no budget or plan to upgrade the wires to Bedford, and Stagecoach have been told assume that nothing will happen in CP5 and their is no current plan as yet for CP6, and Stagecoach are not looking for an answer that begins with H, I doubt H could deliver by 2020 anyway although whether other manufacturer could would also seem doubtful.

But maybe of course he is wrong even I am a little surprised by some of his comments.

However given the frankly ridiculous cost that GWR electrification has now risen to, the what must be a substancial cost of making all IEP's Bi-mode, running them more on Diesel, the need to convert HST's to mini HST's to cover for lack of cascaded units, I frankly wouldn't blame the Government for kicking all large scale electrification projects into the long grass for the forseable future, and if take TPE for instance well they are getting new stock in Diesel mode which could last well into the next TPE franchise if needed.

 

[NotATrainspott]

No manufacturer is offering a 125mph diesel self-powered unit of any type other than Hitachi. The TPE sets are inherently limited by the use of a locomotive (which is itself limited to 100mph), so won't scale up to the train lengths needed on the MML. As kevjs said there would be simply enormous risk involved in acquiring new rolling stock not capable of at least trundling along on electric power. Without any other improvements being needed, Hitachi sets would be able to turn off the diesel engines and roll into St Pancras on electric power alone, which should be enough to keep them safe when the diesel emissions restrictions really start to bite. The pure diesel units for Northern are something else, because they'll be able to spend the rest of their lives on routes where diesel emissions are basically irrelevant. As with so much, I think it will come down to cost, and from what we've heard it sounds like Hitachi are offering the AT300s at a very reasonable price. For another manufacturer and ROSCO to come up with and finance a 125mph self-powered diesel product for a single fleet which will be obsolete not long after being delivered for less money than an off-the-shelf design which has guaranteed use for 30 years would be quite remarkable. If Hitachi production constraints are the problem, then the solution is to derogate the HSTs for a few months. At the rate Hitachi are building sets for the 2020 deadline, it would take them no time at all to produce an MML fleet for delivery only a few months after.

 

[47802]

No manufacturer is offering a 125mph diesel self-powered unit of any type other than Hitachi. The TPE sets are inherently limited by the use of a locomotive (which is itself limited to 100mph), so won't scale up to the train lengths needed on the MML. As kevjs said there would be simply enormous risk involved in acquiring new rolling stock not capable of at least trundling along on electric power. Without any other improvements being needed, Hitachi sets would be able to turn off the diesel engines and roll into St Pancras on electric power alone, which should be enough to keep them safe when the diesel emissions restrictions really start to bite. The pure diesel units for Northern are something else, because they'll be able to spend the rest of their lives on routes where diesel emissions are basically irrelevant. As with so much, I think it will come down to cost, and from what we've heard it sounds like Hitachi are offering the AT300s at a very reasonable price. For another manufacturer and ROSCO to come up with and finance a 125mph self-powered diesel product for a single fleet which will be obsolete not long after being delivered for less money than an off-the-shelf design which has guaranteed use for 30 years would be quite remarkable. If Hitachi production constraints are the problem, then the solution is to derogate the HSTs for a few months. At the rate Hitachi are building sets for the 2020 deadline, it would take them no time at all to produce an MML fleet for delivery only a few months after.

Well how do you know what other manufacturer's are offering? Did we expect Stadler Intercity EMU's and Bi-modes for Anglia for instance.

Yes 68 are limited to 100mph, but I believe a 125mph version may be possible, and that solution involving a single cab 68 at either end effectively a sort of HST2 may be possible. Even I share some pinch of salt about it but we will see. If electrification did eventually happen then you could look at replacing the Locomotive/Power Car with electric versions or cascade elsewhere which is essentially similar to TPE 68 situation. Obviously they wouldn't be as good in a part electrification situation.

AT300's don't strike me as ideal train to be run entirely on Diesel that wasn't what they were really designed for even though GWR have gone for them on the SW route involving a large diesel stretch, but then similarity with their existing fleet would have played a role, and even then there currently no route really planned for them where they will work entirely on Diesel.

 

[northwichcat]

We do know Stagecoach took the unusual step of publishing an ITT for new rolling stock which indicated what their plans were for each of the franchises they planned to bid on and for EMT they weren't planning to obtain new self-powered trains. Although, with them proposing new self-powered trains for SWT and then not winning it maybe their plan was for SWT 15xs to cascade to EMT, which will now need to change.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Well how do you know what other manufacturer's are offering? Did we expect Stadler Intercity EMU's and Bi-modes for Anglia for instance.

Yes 68 are limited to 100mph, but I believe a 125mph version may be possible, and that solution involving a single cab 68 at either end effectively a sort of HST2 may be possible. Even I share some pinch of salt about it but we will see. If electrification did eventually happen then you could look at replacing the Locomotive/Power Car with electric versions or cascade elsewhere which is essentially similar to TPE 68 situation. Obviously they wouldn't be as good in a part electrification situation.

AT300's don't strike me as ideal train to be run entirely on Diesel that wasn't what they were really designed for even though GWR have gone for them on the SW route involving a large diesel stretch, but then similarity with their existing fleet would have played a role, and even then there currently no route really planned for them where they will work entirely on Diesel.

We've heard that Bombardier and Alstom aren't interested in DMUs any more. Stadler and CAF are, but their products are regional 100mph sets. Because the line between commuter, regional and express EMUs has blurred it really isn't that difficult for a manufacturer to turn their 100mph design into a 125mph design. Modern crash regulations allow traditionally designed sets to run at up to 115mph, I believe. With all of the electrical systems designed for that sort of top speed, increasing it by another 10mph isn't hard, and then all that needs done is for the body structure and layout to be tweaked for the increased crash safety requirements. As far as I'm aware, all of Bombardier, Siemens and Hitachi will sell 125mph versions of their standard regional EMUs.

For CAF or Stadler to up their 100mph DEMUs to 125mph it would be a lot more complicated. Power requirements increase with the square of speed, so engines must be larger. However, they also need to have all sorts of modern emissions filtering systems which take up room, so they get very large very quickly. Hitachi have demonstrated this by having to raise the floor above the engines in their AT300. For CAF to build a 125mph version of the 195s for Northern, they would have to go around changing a lot of things. Of course, there's no reason why they couldn't do this, but it would cost money. Remember that since the IEP process began and electrification of the GWML and MML was confirmed, all of the train manufacturers will have assumed that there would never be additional 125mph pure DMUs built. If any more sets were required, then Hitachi would be the only manufacturer capable of producing them at an acceptable cost.

On top of that, the costs will increase further because the banks which finance the orders of new trains won't want to buy something with an inherently short expected life. We already have 125mph pure DMUs - the 180s - but they're already in a fairly precarious position as they have no real point when most high speed lines are being wired up. Hitachi sets have a guaranteed lifetime ahead of them, as the demand for 125mph EMUs will never go away. If the engine sets are leased from MTU rather than bought by the ROSCO, then there's basically no risk involved in financing them, so the ROSCO can offer a cheaper leasing deal.

If for whatever reason Hitachi bi-modes just could not work on the MML, then the alternative seems to me that they could order them to cascade other straight DMUs onto the MML instead. Grand Central, for instance, could give up its 180s and take advantage of the wires and the Hitachi experience and servicing available on the ECML, as could CrossCountry giving up some of its 22x trains.

 

[DanTrain]

I definitely see the logic in XC getting new bi-modes, with more capacity for the central section and the ability to run electric up the ECML. The displaced 220s could then add to the EMT fleet so that the HSTs can move on. The MML could then order new trains as and when they're needed.

 

[47802]

We've heard that Bombardier and Alstom aren't interested in DMUs any more. Stadler and CAF are, but their products are regional 100mph sets. Because the line between commuter, regional and express EMUs has blurred it really isn't that difficult for a manufacturer to turn their 100mph design into a 125mph design. Modern crash regulations allow traditionally designed sets to run at up to 115mph, I believe. With all of the electrical systems designed for that sort of top speed, increasing it by another 10mph isn't hard, and then all that needs done is for the body structure and layout to be tweaked for the increased crash safety requirements. As far as I'm aware, all of Bombardier, Siemens and Hitachi will sell 125mph versions of their standard regional EMUs.

For CAF or Stadler to up their 100mph DEMUs to 125mph it would be a lot more complicated. Power requirements increase with the square of speed, so engines must be larger. However, they also need to have all sorts of modern emissions filtering systems which take up room, so they get very large very quickly. Hitachi have demonstrated this by having to raise the floor above the engines in their AT300. For CAF to build a 125mph version of the 195s for Northern, they would have to go around changing a lot of things. Of course, there's no reason why they couldn't do this, but it would cost money. Remember that since the IEP process began and electrification of the GWML and MML was confirmed, all of the train manufacturers will have assumed that there would never be additional 125mph pure DMUs built. If any more sets were required, then Hitachi would be the only manufacturer capable of producing them at an acceptable cost.

On top of that, the costs will increase further because the banks which finance the orders of new trains won't want to buy something with an inherently short expected life. We already have 125mph pure DMUs - the 180s - but they're already in a fairly precarious position as they have no real point when most high speed lines are being wired up. Hitachi sets have a guaranteed lifetime ahead of them, as the demand for 125mph EMUs will never go away. If the engine sets are leased from MTU rather than bought by the ROSCO, then there's basically no risk involved in financing them, so the ROSCO can offer a cheaper leasing deal.

If for whatever reason Hitachi bi-modes just could not work on the MML, then the alternative seems to me that they could order them to cascade other straight DMUs onto the MML instead. Grand Central, for instance, could give up its 180s and take advantage of the wires and the Hitachi experience and servicing available on the ECML, as could CrossCountry giving up some of its 22x trains.

We shall see but if MML has been kicked into the very long grass then there is no reason to go for a Bi-mode. As for a possible new 125mph diesel be it DMU or some form of Power Car/Loco, I seem to remember a lot of people were saying you couldn't build regional DMU's with underfloor engines that complied with the latest regs not long ago. As for Bombardier/Siemens not being interested in DMU's and no one wanting to fund them, I expect people will have catch up with the new reality on UK railways where many lines will need self powered vehicles for the foreseeable future.

 

[43074]

Bi-modes are unnecessary given the circumstances - i.e. there's no certainty that electrification between London & Sheffield will ever be completed, and they can't use the overheads at speeds in excess of 100mph between Bedford and London which will result in slower journey times. In self-powered modes they're under-powered, and in electric modes they're heavy EMUs, so don't really offer any benefits over the current 222s frankly.

 

[Chester1]

How much of the southern MML will have the paths for 125mph? 16tph peak south of Bedford by Thameslink doesn't leave much spare. If Corby is added to Thameslink to ease terminal capacity at St Pancras then 100mph electric running of bi modes would be a good option. The East Midlands services won't need to stop south of Kettering. The future of the MML after 2033 is Thameslink + regional services. Its debatable that the MML needs new intercity trains and if they receive some they need to be easy to cascade. Bi modes seem to be the best for that and politically better than diesel only.

 

[3141]

I would point out that the recent Enhancements Delivery Plan has got MML electrification (not excluding Bedford-Kettering/Corby which is a CP5 scheme) as a CP6 output - including "Completion of adjustments to existing Fast Line OLE south of Bedford, increasing the permissible speed for electric trains". So not only are there plans to upgrade them, but there is also a clear plan to do it in conjunction with the rest of the electrification.

My understanding (which could well be wrong!) is that at the moment such projects are aspirations for CP6 but we won't know what's actually included until later this year at the earliest. If the amount of money NR is allowed to spend is restricted, there may be very few enhancements, and many of the aspirations will get postponed to CP7, or abandoned.

 

[Chester1]

My understanding (which could well be wrong!) is that at the moment such projects are aspirations for CP6 but we won't know what's actually included until later this year at the earliest. If the amount of money NR is allowed to spend is restricted, there may be very few enhancements, and many of the aspirations will get postponed to CP7, or abandoned.

HS2 is seperately funded so where will all the CP6 funding be spent if not on finishing GWR, MML and doing TP electrification? I am not convinced that there is insufficient money to complete the CP5 projects in CP6. MML to Corby should be mostly done by spring 2019, GWR should be done to Cardiff and there are no northern electrification projects scheduled for work after next year (Windermere to Oxenholme and Lostock to Wigan are indefinitely paused).

 

[Mordac]

How much of the southern MML will have the paths for 125mph? 16tph peak south of Bedford by Thameslink doesn't leave much spare. If Corby is added to Thameslink to ease terminal capacity at St Pancras then 100mph electric running of bi modes would be a good option. The East Midlands services won't need to stop south of Kettering. The future of the MML after 2033 is Thameslink + regional services. Its debatable that the MML needs new intercity trains and if they receive some they need to be easy to cascade. Bi modes seem to be the best for that and politically better than diesel only.

I doubt Leicester will be keen to lose their fast services to London, and no one's going to get to a East Midlands hub type station north of Leicester to then go back down to London.

 

[43074]

How much of the southern MML will have the paths for 125mph? 16tph peak south of Bedford by Thameslink doesn't leave much spare. If Corby is added to Thameslink to ease terminal capacity at St Pancras then 100mph electric running of bi modes would be a good option. The East Midlands services won't need to stop south of Kettering. The future of the MML after 2033 is Thameslink + regional services. Its debatable that the MML needs new intercity trains and if they receive some they need to be easy to cascade. Bi modes seem to be the best for that and politically better than diesel only.

Only 8 of those TL services will be on the fast lines though, that's roughly what runs now, and the EMT morning peak timetable (AM peak to London) is pretty slow anyway. HS2 doesn't serve Leicester which will still need good services to all of London, Derby/Nottingham and the North, and the MML is the best way of providing that - you might as well link the services North & South of Leicester, hence I doubt there will be much change to the overall service. The market will change, in that there will be less through Sheffield to London traffic and the centre-to-centre flows will become more important (e.g. Sheffield to Derby, Derby to Leicester, so I would suggest it will become more like XC), but even then the station site at Toton will mean centre to centre journey times from Nottingham & Derby to London will be similar on both HS2 and MML, and Leicester to London will still need fast trains... so I think there is definitely a future for InterCity stock on the MML.

 

[edwin_m]

I doubt a 125mph straight diesel would even be available at a sensible leasingcost. The ROSCOs have been burned on 379s, 707s, reburbished 455s etc, having put money into all of them to see them almost certainly off-lease when they expected to get many years more rental for them. Either due to a revival of electrification, or just because of pollution concerns, the same could happen to a new or indeed an existing 125mph diesel.

Any such design would be likely to have electric transmission, in which case the transformer and pantograph to make it a bi-mode don't add much cost. Rather like the way ROSCOs have required new EMU designs to have a dual-voltage capability, I think they will insist on a bi-mode to protect their investment.

The only alternative I can see is if DfT decides to guarantee the lease for longer than the next franchise period. That I believe would be very short-sighted of the DfT and very damaging to the prospect of MML eletrification ever happening.

Minimum provision would be to replace the HSTs with a small fleet of bi-modes, probably a follow-on order from Hitachi. The alternative would be to replace the 222s as well, which along with the prospect of something similar for XC might be enough for a new supplier to enter the 125mph bi-mode market.

 

[thenorthern]

Its not just the Midland Main Line services many of the local services have lost newer rolling stock. I know Liverpool to Norwich used to have Class 170s operating the service now its Class 158s and sometimes Class 156s. Crewe to Derby also used to be mostly Class 170s but now its Class 153s and the Robin Hood Line used to be mostly Class 170s but now its Class 156s mostly.

If I remember most the Class 170s went to CrossCountry or London Midland as obviously the Chase Line with its 45mph speed limit needs Class 170s to operate it.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[NotATrainspott]

We shall see but if MML has been kicked into the very long grass then there is no reason to go for a Bi-mode. As for a possible new 125mph diesel be it DMU or some form of Power Car/Loco, I seem to remember a lot of people were saying you couldn't build regional DMU's with underfloor engines that complied with the latest regs not long ago. As for Bombardier/Siemens not being interested in DMU's and no one wanting to fund them, I expect people will have catch up with the new reality on UK railways where many lines will need self powered vehicles for the foreseeable future.

Bi-modes are unnecessary given the circumstances - i.e. there's no certainty that electrification between London & Sheffield will ever be completed, and they can't use the overheads at speeds in excess of 100mph between Bedford and London which will result in slower journey times. In self-powered modes they're under-powered, and in electric modes they're heavy EMUs, so don't really offer any benefits over the current 222s frankly.

There is certainty that Bedford to Corby and Clay Cross to Sheffield will be wired up. The former is needed for the Corby service improvements and the latter will be done for HS2 trains - there is zero possibility of HS2 trains being fitted with heavy diesel engines or batteries just for the sake of saving that bit of wiring. Deciding not to wire up Kettering to Clay Cross is quite a different matter to deciding not to wire up Bedford to Sheffield.

It was always known that more self-powered units would need to be built. The problem was that the original electrification programme would have meant these would only be needed after 2020 or so, meaning there would be little point in investing money in a design which might never be built and might then need totally redrawn once the emissions regulations change again. However, what has not changed is that the need for purely self-powered 125mph units has disappeared completely now that electrification of the GWML and MML are at the very least happening to some extent. Ten years ago the assumption was that bio-diesel would suffice forever and that wires would never be necessary. Now, with passenger numbers being so high and continuing to rise while the diesel emissions problems get more and more problematic, there is really no way we can return to that thinking. The industry will only go along with an idea if they have confidence that it's the way things are going to go. Even if the government decided to stop the rolling programme of electrification for now, it would be a very bold industry member who would actually decide to plan accordingly as the risk of the government reversing course once again and agreeing to wire things up is too high. Electrification has passed the point of no return, and the only thing that will really slow it down or change it is the availability of systems to allow it to be done more effectively. Battery EMUs, for instance, are not as much an alternative to electrification as a way to make it more efficient.

So, which company would want to build a new set of standards-compliant 125mph diesel locomotives? Without capable locomotives it's irrelevant that the rest of the carriages might be capable of it. If one were available and suitable, then it would very much be trivial for CAF to build a few more Mk5A sets and push-pull the locomotives. However, what you've basically ended up with here is an HST. With the immense risk that electric InterCity trains will be implemented on the line anyway in a few years, the only sensible financial option is to look at what we've already got. There's already a pipeline for HST Chilternisation and getting some MML sets done would be easy. Alternatively, cascaded sets from the GWML or ECML could be used instead if they were considered cheaper to modernise - an advantage here is that the refurb could be done without taking trains out of the MML fleet. If someone is funding the works on the ScotRail and CrossCountry HSTs with a last possible use date of 2030 then I'm sure someone would for the MML if electrification couldn't go ahead.

The inability to use the wires south of Bedford would make AT300s less useful than they would have been otherwise, but it isn't the end of the world. Remember that upgrades to wires can happen mostly transparently, like the works to improve the Heathrow Express wires for the new GWML electric services. It might not happen overnight but the switching point for electric to diesel can move slowly northward. At the very least, there won't be any concerns about pollution and emissions in St Pancras and other stations where speeds will be low.

 

[thenorthern]

Central Trains fleet of 53 x 170's was split 3 ways... 1 unit to TransPennine, 23 units to London midland and 29 units to XC...

Indeed although some lines such as the Chase Line and Snow Hill Lines (in part) went from having Class 150s to Class 170s as I think in the end more were allocated to the London Midland franchise than had previously been based there.

 

[Dave1987]

Bi-modes are unnecessary given the circumstances - i.e. there's no certainty that electrification between London & Sheffield will ever be completed, and they can't use the overheads at speeds in excess of 100mph between Bedford and London which will result in slower journey times. In self-powered modes they're under-powered, and in electric modes they're heavy EMUs, so don't really offer any benefits over the current 222s frankly.

You are arguing with the 80X appreciation society! You can't tell them that they aren't absolutely perfect for every single line or criticise them in any single way. The 80X haven't turned a single wheel in passenger service yet they are apparently perfect for absolutely everywhere. They may or may not prove to be a very good train. From what I've read though from people who know what they are on about AT300's would be illogical for the MML but you can't tell them on here that!

 

[Chester1]

You are arguing with the 80X appreciation society! You can't tell them that they aren't absolutely perfect for every single line or criticise them in any single way. The 80X haven't turned a single wheel in passenger service yet they are apparently perfect for absolutely everywhere. They may or may not prove to be a very good train. From what I've read though from people who know what they are on about AT300's would be illogical for the MML but you can't tell them on here that!

My preferred solution would be to a refurb of the Merdians and the cheapest possible DDA compliant upgrade of whichever available Mark IIIs are in the best condition. I think there is too much doom mongering about MML electrification. I can't see a situation emerging were it is not wired from London to Sheffield in the 2020s. After it has been wired EMUs can be ordered. Stadler bi modes might be a decent alternative to supplement the Merdians and then any EMU fleet. The switch to more local journeys probably favours more stops and cheaper services with 100-110mph sufficiently fast.

If Liverpool-Nottingham stays in the franchise then perhaps an order can be tagged to Northerns 195 order to provide more capacity on the route and the introduction of DOO.

 

[edwin_m]

My preferred solution would be to a refurb of the Merdians and the cheapest possible DDA compliant upgrade of whichever available Mark IIIs are in the best condition. I think there is too much doom mongering about MML electrification. I can't see a situation emerging were it is not wired from London to Sheffield in the 2020s. After it has been wired EMUs can be ordered. Stadler bi modes might be a decent alternative to supplement the Merdians and then any EMU fleet. The switch to more local journeys probably favours more stops and cheaper services with 100-110mph sufficiently fast.

If Liverpool-Nottingham stays in the franchise then perhaps an order can be tagged to Northerns 195 order to provide more capacity on the route and the introduction of DOO.

That's certainly a possible alternative future. However it doesn't allow for any growth in passenger numbers, except for the release of two or three Meridians by the Corby electrification.

The truth is we really don't know what the electrification date is, and the reason for the rumoured further franchise extension may well be that DfT doesn't know either. Bidders will have to have a robust working assumption to plan against, and if that fails to be delivered then the bidders will want some form of compensation (which in the case of Northern is why I suspect DfT is paying for the Flex coonversions).

However I would take issue on the point of the MML becoming more of a stopping service. As someone pointed out earlier, Leicester benefits not at all from HS2 so certainly won't be happy with a downgrade to its existing London journey time or frequency. The city centres of Derby and Nottingham will also be similar in time from London via Toton or on the existing route, so the fast direct centre to centre service is essential to avoid prosperity being sucked out to an out-of-town centre at Toton.

 

[thenorthern]

Given that the next franchise will be allowed to select several new services I wonder what they will chose, a regular London to Leeds service I think could finally happen.

That's certainly a possible alternative future. However it doesn't allow for any growth in passenger numbers, except for the release of two or three Meridians by the Corby electrification.

The truth is we really don't know what the electrification date is, and the reason for the rumoured further franchise extension may well be that DfT doesn't know either. Bidders will have to have a robust working assumption to plan against, and if that fails to be delivered then the bidders will want some form of compensation (which in the case of Northern is why I suspect DfT is paying for the Flex coonversions).

However I would take issue on the point of the MML becoming more of a stopping service. As someone pointed out earlier, Leicester benefits not at all from HS2 so certainly won't be happy with a downgrade to its existing London journey time or frequency. The city centres of Derby and Nottingham will also be similar in time from London via Toton or on the existing route, so the fast direct centre to centre service is essential to avoid prosperity being sucked out to an out-of-town centre at Toton.

HS2 isn't due to arrive in the East Midlands until 2032 and thats if its completed on time. With faster journey times direct into the centre of Nottingham and Derby happening with electrification I think HS2 could struggle to make much of an impact on trains to the East Midlands.

 

[Bungle965]

Given that the next franchise will be allowed to select several new services I wonder what they will chose, a regular London to Leeds service I think could finally happen.



HS2 isn't due to arrive in the East Midlands until 2032 and thats if its completed on time. With faster journey times direct into the centre of Nottingham and Derby happening with electrification I think HS2 could struggle to make much of an impact on trains to the East Midlands.

Good grief could you imagine what VTECs response to that would be? They already feel that they are being undermined by the current open access operators that are on the East Coast. They are going to be kicking off even more when First start their operations in a few years time.
I think that there might be a real possibility of the Leeds services stopping after the HST`s are withdrawn.
Sam

 

[thenorthern]

Good grief could you imagine what VTECs response to that would be? They already feel that they are being undermined by the current open access operators that are on the East Coast. They are going to be kicking off even more when First start their operations in a few years time.
I think that there might be a real possibility of the Leeds services stopping after the HST`s are withdrawn.
Sam

Depends if Stagecoach was re-awarded the East Midlands Franchise I don't think Virgin Trains East Coast would object as much if it was someone else.

I know Midland Mainline ordered some Class 222 trains to run a regular London to Leeds via Derby service but the Strategic Rail Authority prevented them from doing that.

 

[The Ham]

You are arguing with the 80X appreciation society! You can't tell them that they aren't absolutely perfect for every single line or criticise them in any single way. The 80X haven't turned a single wheel in passenger service yet they are apparently perfect for absolutely everywhere. They may or may not prove to be a very good train. From what I've read though from people who know what they are on about AT300's would be illogical for the MML but you can't tell them on here that!

First of bimodel does not mean 80x units, so there could be other trains that could be used.

Second, SOME 80x's are limited in self powered mode to reduce engine maintenance, as such sine, like those being used for the Cornish services will be able to run at 125mph. Therefore there is no reason that they couldn't be used.

Assuming the wires aren't designed for 125mph running and based on the 80x's being able to switch power types at speed it cos be possible to program then to get up to 95mph on electric mode and then switch to self powered mode. That would mean that the biggest power demand (that being getting started and up to a fairly decent speed) was done under electric power..

Of course it could be possible that the 80x's are unsuitable and alternative options are used. It's just that those opposed to 80x's tend not to grab at any excuse as to why they should have never been developed.

 

[edwin_m]

There is also an issue about what speed the 80x units can get up to in diesel mode. The maximum diesel configuration still has the end coaches unpowered, unlike a 22x, and virtually all the GW and ECML section with speeds over 100mph will be electrified. Even so there are some doubts about whether they can keep to HST schedules on the GWML.

 

[CosherB]

Time to mention Mk4 loco-hauled stock as an option, with new 125mph-rated diesel locos?