EMR Class 170 updates

[youngiecj]

170638 working its first trip to Skegness today. Terminated at Boston last night, should work 2S07 0920 BSN-SKG.

 

[TheBigD]

170638 working its first trip to Skegness today. Terminated at Boston last night, should work 2S07 0920 BSN-SKG.

On a point of pedantry, 170638 will have been to Skeggy many, many times before during its days with Central Trains .

 

[43102EMR]

On a point of pedantry, 170638 will have been to Skeggy many, many times before during its days with Central Trains .

Yes, but the Central Trains franchise broke up years ago - first trip under the new franchise arrangements since then…

 

[Roast Veg]

Yes, the 158s are staying with EMR and are due a full refurb IIRC - I just hope that EMR pool the 158s with the 170s so we do get to see both on the Liverpool - Nottingham route, as the extra capacity and faster boarding the 170s have over the 158s will be very much appreciated there.

Liverpool to Nottingham should, by all accounts, be 170 only for ease of access through Manchester.

 

[LowLevel]

Liverpool to Nottingham should, by all accounts, be 170 only for ease of access through Manchester.

It has never been planned to be. Plenty of enthusiast commentators think it should be, but at present it is planned to be refurbished 158s.

 

[43102EMR]

It has never been planned to be. Plenty of enthusiast commentators think it should be, but at present it is planned to be refurbished 158s.

It’s a route that makes the most sense for them to be on, hence why many “enthusiast commentators” are saying it. In my opinion, the 170s are wasted being used on the East Midlands locals.

 

[LowLevel]

It’s a route that makes the most sense for them to be on, hence why many “enthusiast commentators” are saying it. In my opinion, the 170s are wasted being used on the East Midlands locals.

I'm not disagreeing, with my enthusiast hat on - it doesn't however change the fact that it isn't the plan

 

[43102EMR]

I'm not disagreeing, with my enthusiast hat on - it doesn't however change the fact that it isn't the plan

Fair enough! Personally I would like to see them both being interchanged like the Central Trains days - it still baffles me why there are no plans to use them there in all honesty.

 

[WillPS]

There are pros and cons to both 158s and 170s. Door layout is advantageous for the Manchester stations but it's a very long route.

To be honest, door layout comes pretty far down the list of importance after capacity, comfort, cleanliness etc. Either are perfectly capable of being good options overall.

 

[class397tpe]

It has never been planned to be. Plenty of enthusiast commentators think it should be, but at present it is planned to be refurbished 158s.

When it was still considered to be split at Nottingham and Manchester-Nottingham given to TPE or someone else, was EMR planning to operate the Nottingham-Norwich portion with the 170s?
Does this actually mean EMR are in a better position r.e. number of 170s, now they are getting additional from southern, and not planning to use them on Nottingham-Norwich?

 

[43102EMR]

When it was still considered to be split at Nottingham and Manchester-Nottingham given to TPE or someone else, was EMR planning to operate the Nottingham-Norwich portion with the 170s?
Does this actually mean EMR are in a better position r.e. number of 170s, now they are getting additional from southern, and not planning to use them on Nottingham-Norwich?

Yes - 170s were (and still are) planned for Nottingham to Norwich. They have made several runs there already in passenger service, although there is a set swap at Nottingham for the onward journey to Manchester and Liverpool when it happens.

 

[TheBigD]

When it was still considered to be split at Nottingham and Manchester-Nottingham given to TPE or someone else, was EMR planning to operate the Nottingham-Norwich portion with the 170s?
Does this actually mean EMR are in a better position r.e. number of 170s, now they are getting additional from southern, and not planning to use them on Nottingham-Norwich?

On the original plans for the EMR franchise, 170s* were due to do all EMR Regional services, with Liverpool to Nottingham being operated by another TOC.
*(11x3car and 33x2car)

With 360s on the EMR Connect, and 810s on EMR Intercity, EMR would have operated just 3 train types for the whole franchise, though the 4 180s are expected to say for a number of years now.

With the various changes over the past couple of years, EMR Regional will still be 170s*, but with refurbished 158s for Liverpool-Nottingham. Though you'd expect various substitutions of either type to happen during day to day operation.

The regional 170 fleet is actually increased by 6 vehicles to 17x3car and 27x2car.

It has not, to my knowledge, been publically confirmed how many 158s will be staying (currently fleet is 26) or whether some will be reformed to 3 cars to allow for 5 car operation on the Liverpool-Nottingham route, though many rumors are in circulation.

 

[class397tpe]

Yes - 170s were (and still are) planned for Nottingham to Norwich. They have made several runs there already in passenger service, although there is a set swap at Nottingham for the onward journey to Manchester and Liverpool when it happens.

So is the route still being planned to be split long-term, and the Nottingham (or Derby) - Norwich portion run by 170s? I was unsure whether it was still going to be split - was thinking that if it wasn't split, and was fully run with the 158s, there would have been more 170s available for other regional services.

 

[youngiecj]

On a point of pedantry, 170638 will have been to Skeggy many, many times before during its days with Central Trains .

Context is a wonderful thing.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Does anyone know if the retention of class 158s has changed EMR's plans for the maintenance of the regional DMU fleet?

Presumably the plans were for all class 170s to be maintained at Eastcroft and some minor changes to the depot were planned (such as being able to fuel all three cars of a 3-car 170 simultaneously), but will it be able to cope with them and a retained class 158 fleet, or will some DMU maintenance need to be transferred to Etches Park?

 

[RailWonderer]

Fleet standardisation is all well and good when the interest rates were low, leasing was cheap and passenger numbers were rising but when the DfT starts overseeing finances in a changing financial climate, we will probably see a return to the days of old where the government says that's your lot, make it work and ToCs operate more types of rolling stock even if it means short term operating costs are higher. In other words, EMR won't get enough rolling stock to replace ageing, mid life or cascaded stock. What they have is good enough, with refurbishments anyway.

 

[Mollman]

So is the route still being planned to be split long-term, and the Nottingham (or Derby) - Norwich portion run by 170s? I was unsure whether it was still going to be split - was thinking that if it wasn't split, and was fully run with the 158s, there would have been more 170s available for other regional services.

There has been no new decree from DfT so expect split will still happen. Whilst it is staying with EMR, given that the new concessions under GBR will not be a like for like of today's 'franchises' there is a strong possibility that Liverpool - Nottingham will end of with a different concession to Nottingham - Norwich.

 

[Nottingham59]

So is the route still being planned to be split long-term, and the Nottingham (or Derby) - Norwich portion run by 170s?

Once the Nottingham-Norwich service is decoupled from Liverpool-Nottingham, I would expect EMR to look at merging it operationally with the Crewe-Nottingham flow, to make a Crewe-Norwich through service. (And reconfigure the Matlock-Derby to run Matlock-Newark.) All being operated by 170's.

 

[Trainbike46]

Once the Nottingham-Norwich service is decoupled from Liverpool-Nottingham, I would expect EMR to look at merging it operationally with the Crewe-Nottingham flow, to make a Crewe-Norwich through service. (And reconfigure the Matlock-Derby to run Matlock-Newark.) All being operated by 170's.

Why switch it from one through service to another?

 

[liamf656]

Once the Nottingham-Norwich service is decoupled from Liverpool-Nottingham, I would expect EMR to look at merging it operationally with the Crewe-Nottingham flow, to make a Crewe-Norwich through service. (And reconfigure the Matlock-Derby to run Matlock-Newark.) All being operated by 170's.

I’m not sure they’d go back on the shakeup of 2021 I’m afraid, although it does look like you’ve speculated heavily on that.

Now that Longport is no longer in the stopping call it looks like the Crewe to Newark service is working quite well (as will Matlock to Notts once resources permit). When/if the Norwich service gets extended to Derby I think the extra service between Notts and Derby will be very much welcomed, rather than merging it with an already existing service

 

[Nottingham59]

Why switch it from one through service to another?

My thinking here is that the two routes Nottm-Norwich and Nottm-Crewe are very similar. Long routes across country to relatively small city destinations. Operationally you would need a steady flow of single units every hour to deliver the service. Even if there were variation of demand at different times of day, the length of each arm means that wouldn't be able to flex the size of the trains on either arm.

On the other hand, Nottm-Matlock and Nottm-Newark C are both relatively short routes, and at peak times would handle high commuter flows in and out of Nottingham and Derby. So again, very similar to each other. It would be easier on these routes to double up units in the morning and evening peaks, and release them for day-time maintenance.

Overall this would give you a more efficient use of units, better matched to the loading profile. But I'm not an expert, and there may well be other considerations to take into account.

 

[DDB]

I doubt they will go for even more disruption by changing the Crewe to Newark Castle around again. However I can see them going back to their original plan of running Matlock to Norwich as given they have failed to run 2 trains an hour Derby to Nottingham I'm not sure they will leap to 3. I also belive at one point there was a rumour that part of the problem with the Matlock Nottingham was terminating at Nottingham so it might help or they might think it will help to eliminate that termination.

 

[Roast Veg]

But I'm not an expert, and there may well be other considerations to take into account.

One chief consideration is Public Performance Measure. I haven't checked the ORR figures (and I don't know if the public detail is there to confirm), but the anecdotes on this forum suggest that Crewe to Norwich had a habit of losing time it couldn't make back. See also: London Northwestern through services to Liverpool via Birmingham.

 

[station_road]

One chief consideration is Public Performance Measure. I haven't checked the ORR figures (and I don't know if the public detail is there to confirm), but the anecdotes on this forum suggest that Crewe to Norwich had a habit of losing time it couldn't make back. See also: London Northwestern through services to Liverpool via Birmingham.

There have never previously been Crewe - Norwich services. Crewe - Derby and Nottingham - Norwich are very different routes, it wouldn't make sense to join them together

 

[High Dyke]

170638 is that remaining as a 3-car, or will it be losing the centre car? It was working 5S98 this morning. First train of the day past me.

 

[TheBigD]

170638 is an XC 3 car set and is on hire to EMR for the summer. No plans to reduce it to a 2 car set.

 

[Mordac]

I'm amazed that of all operators, XC was the one deemed to have surplus stock to loan.

 

[TheBigD]

I'm amazed that of all operators, XC was the one deemed to have surplus stock to loan.

As previously posted, the XC 170 routes are still not running the full pre-covid timetable, hence being able to release a set.

For example, 0922 Birmingham-Stansted and return don't run, 1739 Birmingham-Derby doesn't run, plus a few more services.

 

[Prestige15]

Yes, the 158s are staying with EMR and are due a full refurb IIRC - I just hope that EMR pool the 158s with the 170s so we do get to see both on the Liverpool - Nottingham route, as the extra capacity and faster boarding the 170s have over the 158s will be very much appreciated there.

170 deffo has boarding advantage over the 158 but slower on acceleration but has a higher top speed but can only be done between Grantham - Peterborough, and lacks gangway as not all platforms can take 6 cars let along 5.

Personally i think the 5 car meridians would be better once displaced but 158/170 is good enough.

 

[class397tpe]

170 deffo has boarding advantage over the 158 but slower on acceleration but has a higher top speed but can only be done between Grantham - Peterborough, and lacks gangway as not all platforms can take 6 cars let along 5.

Personally i think the 5 car meridians would be better once displaced but 158/170 is good enough.

Do the meridians have SDO? If so, you could definitely use 6 or 7 car ones - think a 5 car meridian only has as many seats as a 4 car 158 (if not less), so wouldn't be a capacity upgrade between nottingham and liverpool.