Network Rail confirmed plans for CP5 and aspirations for CP6

[Haydn1971]

Think of HS2 as like building the motorway network in the 60/70's - the A5, A6 & A34 all became less useful in the midlands even though they still today go through numerous town and city centres today - most commuters heading into London don't come from near the existing railway stations, most business travellers won't be heading into a town/city centre meeting - they will still need to get a taxi/bus/tram/train from a HS2 station to their final destination just as they do now.

HS2 is going to be the biggest step change in travel since the introduction of the motorway network.

 

[Tomnick]

There'll still be a need for a regional service of sorts on the existing routes though, even if it's not as fast (particularly north of Leicester) as at present. Equally, I'm not convinced that there'd be a need for a Toton - London service via the MML: what flows would that serve? Those passengers who currently head into Nottingham on the bus and tram network to catch a London train (or business travellers using the same to reach their destination after arriving on a train from London) will probably find Toton less convenient in most cases, given that the public transport largely radiates from the centre of Nottingham - much of the network therefore having no easy access to Toton.

 

[Haydn1971]

I fully agree that some form of regional fast service will develop beyond introduction of HS2, it's just not going to be anywhere near the same degree as current IC franchises (other than GW & XC). People won't want to travel from Toton to London, but will want to run intermediate distances and link to HS2 hubs - so travelling from say Newcastle to Leicester you would travel HS2 classic compatable to Toton, then transfer to a regional fast to Leicester, similarly Birmingham to Hull could involve a change at Sheffield... Not that disimilar to now.

The airlines have moved to this hub/spoke format, I'd expect rail to follow, but also with a number of regional fasts offering alternatives to HS2 routes where demand is high enough - for example Liverpool to Birmingham direct on a regional fast could end up been as quick as transferring classic rail to Manchester/Stoke/Crewe then HS2 to Birmingham. These regional fasts could be under a much larger XC franchise or perhaps a merged ECML/MML/WCML franchise or even into regional franchises - it's 15 years away, anything could happen, but it's certain the current franchises won't exist in anything like their current form.

 

[Tomnick]

That's a good point - there probably will be a fair demand for Toton to intermediate stations to the south. It'll be interesting to see how that's catered for whilst still providing the regional services along the London - Notts/Derby/Sheffield corridor: Toton's not in a very good location for being well served by trains from the surrounding cities without affecting the local service between those cities - it'll be interesting to see how it develops!

 

[Kettledrum]

As said by others, "if" the IC 225's go to MML, it's possible that some or all could be shortened to better match the needs of MML and I don't expect them to be there long, perhaps 3-5 years max from 25kv introduction to Leicester and soon after reaching Sheffield - that's my opinion

As others have said, if we can't run 5-6 IC225's from a four platform station someone really needs to get their backsides kicked - a generous turnaround in 20 minutes at peak should enable at least 2 trains per hour per platform - 8 trains per hour.

.......post HS2 I'd expect a Toton-Leicester-St Pancras pattern of maybe 3 trains per hour at peak calling at a variety of different places between Leicester and London, there will be no need for St Pancras to Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield - Chesterfield however looks destined to lose out as I can't see a regular IC from just there being economic

I really hope you're wrong on much of this.

In terms of shortening the 225's to supposedly "better meet the needs of the MML", you still would not have the flexibility that you have at the moment.

Am I right that a 5 car 225 set only gives you 3 passenger carrying cars because passengers can't sit in the DVT or the locomotive.

Services currently run by 2 x 5 car units will be replaced with what? A 10 car 225 set only gives you 8 passenger cars.

I'm afraid I don't like your proposals for no services from St Pancras to Derby, Nottingham or Sheffield either. HS2 will not be suitable for people who live on the "wrong" side of Derby, Nottingham or Sheffield and live far from the location of the new Meadowhall or Toton stations.......and then there is the significant travel between some of the intermediate stations on route. Sheffield to Loughborough, Derby to Leicester and Nottingham to Leicester all seem very popular on the trains I travel on. For some reason, they seem particularly well used by University Students. Even the current Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham "fasts" still have important stops on route. I hope these continue, possibly with a small number of extra stops so no longer quite as fast, but still a really important service, that HS2 can't replace.

If you're really proposing to cut direct London services from Chesterfield, East Midlands Parkway and Loughborough - or to cut them off from existing fast services to Nottingham, Leicester and Derby - I hope you're able to think again.

 

[Haydn1971]

Kettledrum... Just mulling thoughts around...

When I talk of a 5 car IC225 I'm thinking 5 Mk4 carriages, but given the comments in the network rail document, they appear to be thinking of 9 carriages plus loco and DVT.

Given that a substantial number of passengers transferring to HS2, places like Chesterfield will suffer, because they cannot generate enough passengers alone, so with a big chunk of Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby passengers removed from the current MML routes, what's left ?

As I said above, there will be some services from classic stations, but nothing like we see today, perhaps one an hour ? Whereas HS2 will be giving half the journey time, opportunity to park right outside the station, drive around the town centre. There's plenty of down sides to the current HS2 route, a local error for me is putting the HS2 station in Sheffield on the opposite side of the city to where the wealthy districts are, but then that might encourage longer term development closer to Meadowhall in the lovely green valleys to the north and south of Rotherham.

I doubt I'm going to have any influence on TOC's and what services they provide, I've read the documents though, I'm aware of aspirations of local authorities via discussions I've had through my work in civil engineering and I'm acutely aware of the economics driving future infrastructure investment. I may be well off the mark, but ultimately TOC's are in it to make a profit, not to service every niche market need.

 

[tbtc]

You seem to have forgotten that for the current timetable to work at certain times two 5 car Meridian sets share the same platform at St Pancras. Clearly this would be not the case if 225's were introduced on the MML. Sharing platforms is far from ideal but there doesn't appear to be a solution to this problem

I'm aware that it happens, thanks, but the question we should be asking is "why is a four platform station that only sees five departures an hour off-peak so inefficient that trains have to share the same platform on a regular basis"?

Compare St P's East Midlands platforms to other four platformed stations like Fenchurch Street... one reason could be because St Pancras has to deal with the different types of stock (so that an incoming five coach 222 can't form a northbound service that requires the larger capacity of a seven coach 222 or an HST).

There should be no reason why a four platform station cannot accommodate six departures an hour, or even eight departures an hour (or need to have different trains sharing the one platform) - unless you can enlighten me further?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Kettledrum... Just mulling thoughts around...

When I talk of a 5 car IC225 I'm thinking 5 Mk4 carriages, but given the comments in the network rail document, they appear to be thinking of 9 carriages plus loco and DVT.

Given that a substantial number of passengers transferring to HS2, places like Chesterfield will suffer, because they cannot generate enough passengers alone, so with a big chunk of Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby passengers removed from the current MML routes, what's left ?

As I said above, there will be some services from classic stations, but nothing like we see today, perhaps one an hour ? Whereas HS2 will be giving half the journey time, opportunity to park right outside the station, drive around the town centre. There's plenty of down sides to the current HS2 route, a local error for me is putting the HS2 station in Sheffield on the opposite side of the city to where the wealthy districts are, but then that might encourage longer term development closer to Meadowhall in the lovely green valleys to the north and south of Rotherham.

I doubt I'm going to have any influence on TOC's and what services they provide, I've read the documents though, I'm aware of aspirations of local authorities via discussions I've had through my work in civil engineering and I'm acutely aware of the economics driving future infrastructure investment. I may be well off the mark, but ultimately TOC's are in it to make a profit, not to service every niche market need.

I don't think it's likely that St Pancras will no longer show up on the departures board at Sheffield Midland. I imagine the MML would transition to using something like the 200km/h Aventra EMU stock which would stop more often on the same routes as they do today, probably including extensions beyond Sheffield to other places via Meadowhall for the HS2 interchange. There will still be passengers who will prefer to use the classic services in the same way as there are passengers on London Midland on intercity routes. There could also be some interesting services which would make use of the East-West rail link to serve journeys which currently require a change or two.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm aware that it happens, thanks, but the question we should be asking is "why is a four platform station that only sees five departures an hour off-peak so inefficient that trains have to share the same platform on a regular basis"?

Compare St P's East Midlands platforms to other four platformed stations like Fenchurch Street... one reason could be because St Pancras has to deal with the different types of stock (so that an incoming five coach 222 can't form a northbound service that requires the larger capacity of a seven coach 222 or an HST.

There should be no reason why a four platform station cannot accommodate six departures an hour, or even eight departures an hour (or need to have different trains sharing the one platform) - unless you can enlighten me further?

In all fairness this is something that other forum members have stated on this thread and yet no one appears to have the answer, including rail industry professionals! Now of course it may well be the case that trains of varying length are not helping the situation but a mid evening departure to Derby doesn't need 9 coaches!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Think of HS2 as like building the motorway network in the 60/70's - the A5, A6 & A34 all became less useful in the midlands even though they still today go through numerous town and city centres today - most commuters heading into London don't come from near the existing railway stations, most business travellers won't be heading into a town/city centre meeting - they will still need to get a taxi/bus/tram/train from a HS2 station to their final destination just as they do now.

HS2 is going to be the biggest step change in travel since the introduction of the motorway network.

Haydn there is one key difference here between motorways and HS2 which you appear to have over looked. There are many more opportunities to join a motorway then there are to board a HS2 service!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm quoting a line from the Network Rail document that mentions both 10x 26m which "could" be Class 800/801 or a new class by Hitachi or others as design and regulations will be tighter and also mentions 9x 23m loco hauled, which sounds like IC 225, but also could be an electric hauled Mk3 rake (less likely).

I concur that it’s highly unlikely to be rakes of mk3 coaches! However I'm curious to know why Network Rail are suggesting that it will be a mixture of class 800 / 801's and loco hauled stock. Why not just a uniform fleet of trains? I appreciate that this is not a question that you are able to answer but never the less the question still stands!

As said by others, "if" the IC 225's go to MML, it's possible that some or all could be shortened to better match the needs of MML and I don't expect them to be there long, perhaps 3-5 years max from 25kv introduction to Leicester and soon after reaching Sheffield - that's my opinion

Ok look I realise that this is only an idea but if the TOC were to do that what would happen to all the spare mk4 coaches? If all the locos are in use (class 91's or maybe even Traxx) that will mean that a number of mk4's will surely have to go off lease? I can't see a leasing company being very happy about having an asset that is not earning money!

If the 225's are only to be on the MML for 3 - 5 years what happens then? What stock is likely to replace them? If it turns out to be more class 800's / 801's why not order them at the same time? Even if all of those trains are not on stream at the same time surely it would not take 5 years to complete an order for 30 trains?

I'm not entirely convinced that in the short term absolute journey times over extra seats will be that much of an issue - as said above, they could be shortened to reduce running costs, I'm not sure how that would impact on acceleration and in any event I'm not entirely convinced that acceleration differences are going to be that different or even that important. Also, are the IC225's that much more to maintain than the DEMU 222 fleet ?

Ok but if we start shortening 225's sets then we don't gain anymore seats! However if we kept the 225's as they are I would suggest that journey times should not be compromised in order to have more seats! Too much time and money has been spent on MML upgrades for that to happen. In fact in all fairness even at peak times overcrowding on MML services is not a problem because of the service frequency, at least in my experience.

In terms of maintenance costs between Meridians and the class 91's it would appear from what I've read that the two are poles apart. Given that the leasing company appears to be keen to replace their class 91's with a brand new alternative surely that tells you all you need to know?[/QUOTE]

As others have said, if we can't run 5-6 IC225's from a four platform station someone really needs to get their backsides kicked - a generous turnaround in 20 minutes at peak should enable at least 2trains per hour per platform - 8 trains per hour.

For once I agree with you! However EMT has been operating out of platforms 1 - 4 for a number of years now and yet the same problems still remain. Surely by now the penny would have dropped? Now this may well come down to the issue of trains of varying length and Meridians / HST's but wouldn't this still be the case if the 225's were short formed?

Fair comment, but post HS2 I'd expect a Toton-Leicester-St Pancras pattern of maybe 3 trains per hour at peak calling at a variety of different places between Leicester and London, there will be no need for St Pancras to Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield - Chesterfield however looks destined to lose out as I can't see a regular IC from just there being economic

With the current MML timetable Leicester enjoys non stop services to St Pancras. Take these away and Leicester suffers. The other issue is getting to Toton from Derby and Nottingham. The A52, the M1 and the Nottingham ring road are an absolute nightmare in the the peak and for many people it will simply be not worth travelling to Toton.

Yes customers could take a train from Derby to Toton but people are used to having a direct train to London. My gut feeling is that people will not want to travel out to Toton to take a train to London if they have to change trains or queue on the M1 or the A52. I accept that customers could take the tram into the centre of Nottingham but that won't be the quickest of journeys! And I think you can forget about having a tram line from Toton to Derby as the local area is far too rural.

It's all very well to say that Chesterfield has to lose out but look at the areas around Chesterfield. They need all the transport links and more importantly investment that they can get. You cannot simply write a town off like that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I said above, there will be some services from classic stations, but nothing like we see today, perhaps one an hour ? Whereas HS2 will be giving half the journey time, opportunity to park right outside the station, drive around the town centre. There's plenty of down sides to the current HS2 route, a local error for me is putting the HS2 station in Sheffield on the opposite side of the city to where the wealthy districts are, but then that might encourage longer term development closer to Meadowhall in the lovely green valleys to the north and south of Rotherham.

Realistically, even with the improved service to London how many people are going to be attracted to Rotherham of all places to take advantage of all this? In all honesty Haydn could you really imagine people moving from Totley to Rotherham?

 

[Tomnick]

I shouldn't think there'd be any great problems with introducing a sixth train into St Pancras each hour, from a planning point of view at least - the fact that two trains have to share doesn't mean that the station's necessarily full at all times. Having looked at a typical hour in more detail, there are only a couple of occasions when all four platforms are (briefly) occupied simultaneously, and I suspect that's only because an Up train has been retimed to arrive slightly earlier and a Down train to depart slightly later (so previously the Up train could quickly reoccupy the same platform) in each case. Add to that the fact that the xx:15 Nottingham trains seem to layover for just over an hour, and it's easier to understand why the platforms are used quite inefficiently. If a sixth service was introduced though, would that either use the stock off the Nottingham arrival (and v.v.) thus shortening that long layover, or would it require a complete rewrite of the timetable such that platforms could once again be reoccupied more quickly and therefore used more efficiently? Either way, I reckon it could be made to work quite comfortably.

 

[The Ham]

Haydn there is one key difference here between motorways and HS2 which you appear to have over looked. There are many more opportunities to join a motorway then there are to board a HS2 service!

But then there are a lot more chances to join our trunk roads than there are our existing rail network, so I think that it is a fair comparison.

Yes there will be cases where metro services have a more frequent stopping pattern than a limited access A road (more akin to a motorway), but then there are trunk roads where individual houses are served off them and railway stations which are tens of miles apart. Therefore overall the anology stands.

 

[The Planner]

In all fairness this is something that other forum members have stated on this thread and yet no one appears to have the answer, including rail industry professionals!

I dont think that is the case at all, it is just that no one on here has the time or inclanation to do a proper study on it to prove otherwise (though pay me consultants wages and I might have a go....)

 

[The Ham]

I dont think that is the case at all, it is just that no one on here has the time or inclanation to do a proper study on it to prove otherwise (though pay me consultants wages and I might have a go....)

...and even if someone where to come up with a reasonable attempt at it, chances are they would be shot down by others who would have spotted a few minor problems (i.e. that train needs to pass through x at y otherwise there's a clash, so that train would need to leave/arrive at this time).

 

[Haydn1971]

Haydn there is one key difference here between motorways and HS2 which you appear to have over looked. There are many more opportunities to join a motorway then there are to board a HS2 service!

Answered above by others...

I concur that it’s highly unlikely to be rakes of mk3 coaches! However I'm curious to know why Network Rail are suggesting that it will be a mixture of class 800 / 801's and loco hauled stock. Why not just a uniform fleet of trains? I appreciate that this is not a question that you are able to answer but never the less the question still stands!

Simple really, it's not suggesting a mix, Network Rail is covering all three bases on platform lengths with EMU's, 800/801 types and loco hauled - you extend all the platforms to suit all the anticipated stock for that route - you wouldn't clear for 26m multiple units if you didn't intend to add them at a later stage as the cost could be quite substantial

Ok look I realise that this is only an idea but if the TOC were to do that what would happen to all the spare mk4 coaches? If all the locos are in use (class 91's or maybe even Traxx) that will mean that a number of mk4's will surely have to go off lease? I can't see a leasing company being very happy about having an asset that is not earning money!

That's up to the leasing company, if they wanna peddle costly old stock, they run the risk of not being able to lease it out to a TOC who has better options - but considering the platform lengthening is for 9 plus loco and DVT the DfT appear to be covering a full length unit - the suggestion of shortening is only in response to earlier comments about the IC225 being too big.

If the 225's are only to be on the MML for 3 - 5 years what happens then? What stock is likely to replace them? If it turns out to be more class 800's / 801's why not order them at the same time? Even if all of those trains are not on stream at the same time surely it would not take 5 years to complete an order for 30 trains?

It won't be 800/801's as it would be a new tender, it could be a second generation 800/801 from Hitachi or just as likely a competing product from another manufacturer - the IC225's would then go for sale overseas or to be broken up, or some used for specialist roles - sleepers, department use etc

Ok but if we start shortening 225's sets then we don't gain anymore seats! However if we kept the 225's as they are I would suggest that journey times should not be compromised in order to have more seats! Too much time and money has been spent on MML upgrades for that to happen. In fact in all fairness even at peak times overcrowding on MML services is not a problem because of the service frequency, at least in my experience.

As said above, it's a shot from the hip in response to earlier comments - I'd expect them to stay in a proven formation

In terms of maintenance costs between Meridians and the class 91's it would appear from what I've read that the two are poles apart. Given that the leasing company appears to be keen to replace their class 91's with a brand new alternative surely that tells you all you need to know?

Which seems to answer the question of why they want **** of the 91's, but conflicts with what's said about diesels costing more to maintain than electrics

For once I agree with you! However EMT has been operating out of platforms 1 - 4 for a number of years now and yet the same problems still remain. Surely by now the penny would have dropped? Now this may well come down to the issue of trains of varying length and Meridians / HST's but wouldn't this still be the case if the 225's were short formed?

Is there a problem ? Or is EMT just being lax in turning trains around because it doesn't have to be quick - I.e no market for more

With the current MML timetable Leicester enjoys non stop services to St Pancras. Take these away and Leicester suffers. The other issue is getting to Toton from Derby and Nottingham. The A52, the M1 and the Nottingham ring road are an absolute nightmare in the the peak and for many people it will simply be not worth travelling to Toton.

On balance, it will be no different, some passengers will benefit, some won't

Yes customers could take a train from Derby to Toton but people are used to having a direct train to London. My gut feeling is that people will not want to travel out to Toton to take a train to London if they have to change trains or queue on the M1 or the A52. I accept that customers could take the tram into the centre of Nottingham but that won't be the quickest of journeys! And I think you can forget about having a tram line from Toton to Derby as the local area is far too rural.

Again, there's always going to be winners and losers

It's all very well to say that Chesterfield has to lose out but look at the areas around Chesterfield. They need all the transport links and more importantly investment that they can get. You cannot simply write a town off like that!

I'm not, HS2 has

Realistically, even with the improved service to London how many people are going to be attracted to Rotherham of all places to take advantage of all this? In all honesty Haydn could you really imagine people moving from Totley to Rotherham?

Don't be fooled by Jamie Oliver, there are some fantastic areas to live in Rotherham that offer better housing stock than most of the over populated Totley/Dore area. I'll show you around if your ever up here and at a loose end.

 

[Tomnick]

Is there a problem ? Or is EMT just being lax in turning trains around because it doesn't have to be quick - I.e no market for more

I don't think there's a problem - it all worked very neatly (with 5tph and quite long turnarounds) until the linespeed increases (when the tweaks meant that platform sharing became necessary, as above) recently. That doesn't mean that it can't accommodate another one or two trains per hour though! As you say, why tighten things up - possibly resulting in inappropriate stock allocations and a less resilient timetable - when it works as it is?

 

[Bald Rick]

I dont think that is the case at all, it is just that no one on here has the time or inclanation to do a proper study on it to prove otherwise (though pay me consultants wages and I might have a go....)

I looked at the platform workings today. In short the sharing seems to be driven by EMTs desire to keep short trains on quieter service and long trains on busier services. In most hours there is a train with approx an hour layover.

So with a consistent fleet, and some TT tweaking it all goes away. Albeit at the expense of running some services with a sparse population aboard.

Consultant invoice in the post

 

[Haydn1971]

Consultant invoice in the post

Haha... How true is that

 

[HowardGWR]

I dont think that is the case at all, it is just that no one on here has the time or inclanation to do a proper study on it to prove otherwise (though pay me consultants wages and I might have a go....)

Not if you can't spell inclination, would I.

There is also an apostrophe needed with the word 'consultants'.

 

[The Planner]

Planning trains doesn't need a dictionary.....

 

[Ships]

This says it all about NR's attitude to the Electric Spine:



NR basically don't want to do it, especially the DC-AC conversion west of Basingstoke.
They have prioritised their pet project (MML) and extended it to the ECML.
East-West Oxford-Bletchley is also OK, as new construction.
But Bletchley-Bedford and Nuneaton-Leamington seem to be troublesome. 
And now we find the sole shareholder and funder says (twice): "Do it, in CP5 please".
Should be fun watching the fallout.

I was of the opinion electric spine had died a death but speaking to some very senior folks on the project this doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was of the opinion electric spine had died a death but speaking to some very senior folks on the project this doesn't seem to be the case.

It's covered in great detail in the NR document we're discussing in this thread. It was also included in the earlier draft versions published by NR a couple of times since the original CP5 HLOS/SoFA was published.

There are clearly arguments continuing about the timescales, with DfT wanting it done earlier, (as it shows in the text), but there's no indication it had ever 'died a death'...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Answered above by others...

The analogy does not apply in terms of the East and North Midlands because of the very poor access to HS2.

Simple really, it's not suggesting a mix, Network Rail is covering all three bases on platform lengths with EMU's, 800/801 types and loco hauled - you extend all the platforms to suit all the anticipated stock for that route - you wouldn't clear for 26m multiple units if you didn't intend to add them at a later stage as the cost could be quite substantial.

Ok first of all why are we talking about extending the platforms at St Pancras when there is clearly no need to do so? Network Rail has not stated that it’s their intention to extend the platforms at St Pancras. Secondly, if Network Rail is simply highlighting options for the MML I really don't see why the 225's have been included here. However inclusion of 800 / 801 derivatives and EMU's for the Corby route are obvious.

That's up to the leasing company, if they wanna peddle costly old stock, they run the risk of not being able to lease it out to a TOC who has better options - but considering the platform lengthening is for 9 plus loco and DVT the DfT appear to be covering a full length unit - the suggestion of shortening is only in response to earlier comments about the IC225 being too big.

Once again, where has there been any mention of platform lengthening at St Pancras. Network Rail have themselves agreed that this would be very difficult so why do you think it would be possible? This makes the case for 225's even less likely; why would you lengthen platforms for trains that your words would only run for 3 - 5 years?

It won't be 800/801's as it would be a new tender, it could be a second generation 800/801 from Hitachi or just as likely a competing product from another manufacturer - the IC225's would then go for sale overseas or to be broken up, or some used for specialist roles - sleepers, department use etc

Ok, fair enough. However what is there to suggest that an 800 / 801 derivative won't be ready for the start of electric services on the MML north of Bedford? I appreciate that Network Rail are simply hedging their bets but I would suggest the likely hood of 225's running on the MML is very low.[/QUOTE]

Which seems to answer the question of why they want **** of the 91's, but conflicts with what's said about diesels costing more to maintain than electrics.

If you were to compare EMU's against DMU's of the same age then yes I would agree with you but we're not!

On balance, it will be no different, some passengers will benefit, some won't

With reference to Leicester clearly it would be impossible for it to have direct access to HS2, as indeed is the case for Chesterfield. However there is no reason why Leicester should lose its fast trains to St Pancras and I don't believe that will happen. And from what I've read Network Rail are suggesting that the service along the MML, certainly as far as Derby and Nottingham will pretty much remain the same.

I referred to Chesterfield because it was you who suggested that it would lose all of its IC services, not because it didn't have a HS2 station. There is no way that the DfT would develope a transport policy on the basis of winners and losers! Especially not with regard to towns like Chesterfield, given that one of the aims of HS2 is to readdress the economic north / south divide! I believe that there will still be regular IC services between Sheffield and St Pancras.

Now in terms of Derby / Nottingham and your "winners and losers", if people don't think its worth travelling out to Toton they will continue to use fast and direct services along the MML. This is something that Network Rail and the DfT have both acknowledged. In other words your many "losers" will simply choose not to use HS2.

Don't be fooled by Jamie Oliver, there are some fantastic areas to live in Rotherham that offer better housing stock than most of the over populated Totley/Dore area. I'll show you around if your ever up here and at a loose end.

I'm sorry you've completely lost me here. What is the connection between Jamie Oliver and Rotherham? In terms of the supposed benefits of living in Rotherham I'm not the one who you should be preaching to given that I live in SW London and have no intention of moving! However I don't think you'll ever convince people to move across the city, HS2 station or not!

 

[Haydn1971]

The analogy does not apply in terms of the East and North Midlands because of the very poor access to HS2.

We could go around on this for days, clearly we shall have to agree to disagree on this one - I simply don't want to get into a hair splitting exercise about an analogy

Ok first of all why are we talking about extending the platforms at St Pancras when there is clearly no need to do so? Network Rail has not stated that it’s their intention to extend the platforms at St Pancras. Secondly, if Network Rail is simply highlighting options for the MML I really don't see why the 225's have been included here. However inclusion of 800 / 801 derivatives and EMU's for the Corby route are obvious.

I don't recall any specific mention of St Pancras - Network Rail has said in the CP6 document that platform lengths on MML need looking at in terms of 12 car EMU's, something that sounds like IC225 and something that sounds like 800/801

Once again, where has there been any mention of platform lengthening at St Pancras. Network Rail have themselves agreed that this would be very difficult so why do you think it would be possible? This makes the case for 225's even less likely; why would you lengthen platforms for trains that your words would only run for 3 - 5 years?

I've not suggested specific lengthening at any station, the CP6 document refers to lengthening. I'd suggest you read through it rather than bleating at me for simply stating something in a published document.

Ok, fair enough. However what is there to suggest that an 800 / 801 derivative won't be ready for the start of electric services on the MML north of Bedford? I appreciate that Network Rail are simply hedging their bets but I would suggest the likely hood of 225's running on the MML is very low.

Simple really, the 800/801 is a product of a PFI contract that covers building and maintaining a specific type of train - early contracts had mention of other routes, but the contract is for GWML & ECML - if 800/801 were moved, penalty clauses would be enacted, if new express 125mph multiple units were to be introduced on the MML or even XC route, tenders would be open to any manufacturer, but clearly Hitachi would be keen to build more 800/801 type units post EC/GW obligations, but then so will every other manufacturer and they are likely to be able to start construction of their product before Hitachi can

If you were to compare EMU's against DMU's of the same age then yes I would agree with you but we're not!

It's others that make the comments about costs of electric vs diesel - I've no costs to make an informed comment on this detail, and oddly, haven't !

With reference to Leicester clearly it would be impossible for it to have direct access to HS2, as indeed is the case for Chesterfield. However there is no reason why Leicester should lose its fast trains to St Pancras and I don't believe that will happen. And from what I've read Network Rail are suggesting that the service along the MML, certainly as far as Derby and Nottingham will pretty much remain the same.

Believe whatever you like, my comment is based upon the economics of running a regular fast train with a fraction of the passengers, the TOC's aren't going to do it if it's not profitable - can Leicester generate enough passengers alone to justify as many trains as what call there now - the answer is no - could it generate enough to justify one, absolutely, two, hmm... I'm not convinced

I referred to Chesterfield because it was you who suggested that it would lose all of its IC services, not because it didn't have a HS2 station. There is no way that the DfT would develope a transport policy on the basis of winners and losers! Especially not with regard to towns like Chesterfield, given that one of the aims of HS2 is to readdress the economic north / south divide! I believe that there will still be regular IC services between Sheffield and St Pancras.

Haha... Everything the DfT does creates winners and losers - add a bus lane, car users suffer, widen a road, pedestrians have more road to cross, move trains between TOC's, someone gains, someone suffers

Now in terms of Derby / Nottingham and your "winners and losers", if people don't think its worth travelling out to Toton they will continue to use fast and direct services along the MML. This is something that Network Rail and the DfT have both acknowledged. In other words your many "losers" will simply choose not to use HS2.

There won't be a MML service as it is now - passengers from Sheffield, Derby & Nottingham will use HS2 for London - take them away, MML as a franchise isn't economic to run as a single franchise - Leeds, York & north of there will use HS2 & CC HS2 services to London over ECML, as will Birmingham and sources north of there will transfer to HS2 & CC HS2 from WCML - some destinations will still be better served by current classic rail in a much wider XC style franchise to replace ECML/MML/WCML

I'm sorry you've completely lost me here. What is the connection between Jamie Oliver and Rotherham?

Look up Jamies School Dinners

In terms of the supposed benefits of living in Rotherham I'm not the one who you should be preaching to given that I live in SW London and have no intention of moving! However I don't think you'll ever convince people to move across the city, HS2 station or not!

No preaching here, my offer still stands, I can show you some amazing detached property in acres of land for the price of a rabbit hutch in SW London - Rotherham isn't a very nice town centre at all, the rural areas to the south and north are conversely very nice, with pockets of mining villages, which to be fair ain't that nice... Just like the SW area of London you live in, very nice streets next to very bad streets. I already live in a very nice alternative area of SE Sheffield that puts Dore/Totley to shame - I'm happy where I am, hopefully the news won't get to the Sheffield Hallam mob who will just inflate prices

 

[MidlandMainlie]

It won't be 800/801's as it would be a new tender, it could be a second generation 800/801 from Hitachi or just as likely a competing product from another manufacturer - the IC225's would then go for sale overseas or to be broken up, or some used for specialist roles - sleepers, department use

Any 800's or 801's for the MML would have to be built alongside the GWML and ECML orders, the Newton Acyliffe factory I believe has enough capacity to open a second production line so thet should be built to a similar specification as the GW and EC orders.

 

[Haydn1971]

Any 800's or 801's for the MML would have to be built alongside the GWML and ECML orders, the Newton Acyliffe factory I believe has enough capacity to open a second production line so thet should be built to a similar specification as the GW and EC orders.

I disagree... The tender process hasn't started, so it's already several years behind the IEP PFI - by the time a tender document is pulled together, expressions of interest are sorted, final details, we could be 6-7 years perhaps more behind the start of 800/801 construction - design specs and regulations will have changed in that time - also Hitachi cannot be just given an order for 20-30 multiple express units, it will have to tender with other manufacturers otherwise the process would be anti competitive and risk a challenge in court by other manufacturers

 

[Manchester77]

I disagree... The tender process hasn't started, so it's already several years behind the IEP PFI - by the time a tender document is pulled together, expressions of interest are sorted, final details, we could be 6-7 years perhaps more behind the start of 800/801 construction - design specs and regulations will have changed in that time - also Hitachi cannot be just given an order for 20-30 multiple express units, it will have to tender with other manufacturers otherwise the process would be anti competitive and risk a challenge in court by other manufacturers

There are ways to get around the competitive tender process which have been used by the DfT before, for example when it put the tender for the units which eventually became the 377/6s it stated that the units must be fully compatible with the existing southern fleet and so Siemens and other competitors were kind of excluded.

If you put out an ITT for just the trains, plain and simple, with a relatively simple spec (I.e. 125mph, X coaches long etc.) that could be based on existing platforms offered by manufacturers then it shouldn't take as long at the IEP tender which I think was suspended during the spending review anyway which further delayed it.

 

[jimm]

I disagree... The tender process hasn't started, so it's already several years behind the IEP PFI - by the time a tender document is pulled together, expressions of interest are sorted, final details, we could be 6-7 years perhaps more behind the start of 800/801 construction - design specs and regulations will have changed in that time - also Hitachi cannot be just given an order for 20-30 multiple express units, it will have to tender with other manufacturers otherwise the process would be anti competitive and risk a challenge in court by other manufacturers

What's a PFI got to do with it? That was the way that DfT decided to go about the orders it organised. Any subsequent IEP orders look far more likely to be done by conventional leasing company means, which won't take six or seven years to achieve, especially not if Hitachi's plant can run multiple production lines.

Yes, there will have to be a tender process but what are the likely options?

IEP or a next-generation UK-gauge Pendolino, which doesn't exist yet. And would tilt be required anyway for MML, set against the cost of easing curves at places like Wellingborough, and would Alstom want to go through the design and bid process for a middling-sized order with limited prospects for further UK purchases, apart perhaps for WestCoast, with the EC and GW routes already sewn up by IEP?

Oh, silly me, I forgot the solves-all-problems AC Class 444-alike, or something from China...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Say the route from Weymouth to Waterloo was converted to overhead, would that open up a lot more paths along the line (ignoring the single line bit between Dorch South and I think it's Morden - I hope that bit gets re-doubled eventually)?

 

[HowardGWR]

Say the route from Weymouth to Waterloo was converted to overhead, would that open up a lot more paths along the line (ignoring the single line bit between Dorch South and I think it's Morden - I hope that bit gets re-doubled eventually)?

The odd thing is that NR and DCC keep stating that the doubling is dependent on better power supplies. There is never a subsequent sentence that states 'so what we are going to do about it - is'! Of course with DCC, if it involves spending money on rail, it's a non-starter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I was of the opinion electric spine had died a death but speaking to some very senior folks on the project this doesn't seem to be the case.

The railway can be schizophrenic when it wants to be.
During the 1974 Channel Tunnel planning, BR HQ badly wanted the scheme to go ahead (prestige, politics etc).
But the Southern Region (then with a lot of local power) opposed the scheme, saying it was hard enough running the service as it was without adding more "foreign" trains onto the network.
That caused all the trouble with new tunnels under Croydon and the cancellation of the whole scheme because of the increased costs!
The SR also opposed it because of the impact on the ferries which it then ran.

On the electric spine, I have yet to see any enthusiasm from the NR Wessex/SWT axis.
I think they sniffily said that if DfT wanted to put wires up in the area they should start with Basingstoke-Salisbury.
You'd think someone would be championing the replacement of ancient 3rd rail power infrastructure with something better.
And the freight people appear to be saying "if I were you I wouldn't start from here [Southampton], but at Felixstowe".