Short formed EMT - Nottingham to Liverpool

[Haydn1971]

If 4 Cars are available, here will be 4 Cars. If not, there will only be 2 whatever time of day. Times of day can't always be picked and chosen.

Four cars are the norm - it wouldn't be acceptable to short from the HST's to London, shrug the shoulders and say it's all that available

 

[Tomnick]

It certainly doesn't follow that, if a service to Liverpool and back is short-formed, its back working from Norwich will be similarly short-formed. If nothing else changes, as edwin_m implies and as a general rule, the service that departs Nottingham for Liverpool around one hour after the short-formed one arrives from Liverpool will be missing a unit (and so on). That doesn't account for a unit becoming available during the day to pick up the 'missing' diagram though, nor does it account for anything else expiring and a strengthening unit being pinched to avoid cancellations elsewhere. Finally, they might decide to short-form an earlier Liverpool service and step back the unit thereby released onto the 'missing' diagram to try to ensure that the busiest services are strengthened in the evening.

 

[380gk]

Four cars are the norm - it wouldn't be acceptable to short from the HST's to London, shrug the shoulders and say it's all that available

It's not hard.

If the train is fixed, it will be stuck out in service probably at Nottingham as soon as it can.

HSTs can be short formed and have been before on EMT. The Norwich route is a big earner and is a big deal, doubt they're doing it out of spite.

 

[Haydn1971]

HSTs can be short formed and have been before on EMT. The Norwich route is a big earner and is a big deal, doubt they're doing it out of spite.

There's no suggestion of spite from me, there is a suggestion from me that at a basic level with zero cost, more could be done to help passengers make an informed choice by indicating which services will be short formed and at a much higher level, if something needs to be done urgently to units, what penalties are placed on the ROSCO for not providing suitable alternatives to the TOC to ensure its customers are not let down and how does that get back to the customers who ultimately have to suffer the failings of the service providers.

 

[LowLevel]

As soon as it gets warm reasonably intensively worked 25 year old diesel units regrettably start to suffer. Generally speaking if the 0521 is short formed the 1247 Nottingham to Liverpool and 1552 return from Liverpool to Norwich will be too. However it's not a given as units turn up during the day off repairs or whatever and other things can sometimes be done to mitigate. However unfortunately sometimes it's something you're stuck with. The newest unit in the EMT local fleet will be about 24 years old and the oldest around 27-28 years old and unless either more trains appear to allow increased maintenance or some heavy engineering is paid for decreasing reliability is to be expected - diesels wear more than electrics. Some work will probably be announced with the direct award.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There's no suggestion of spite from me, there is a suggestion from me that at a basic level with zero cost, more could be done to help passengers make an informed choice by indicating which services will be short formed and at a much higher level, if something needs to be done urgently to units, what penalties are placed on the ROSCO for not providing suitable alternatives to the TOC to ensure its customers are not let down and how does that get back to the customers who ultimately have to suffer the failings of the service providers.

Does this group not have a 'like' button? (I can't get the icon to work)

LIKE LIKE LIKE!

 

[Jonny]

Four cars are the norm - it wouldn't be acceptable to short from the HST's to London, shrug the shoulders and say it's all that available

Then again, it is harder to short-form a HST than it is to short-form a multi-DMU train.

 

[Haydn1971]

However unfortunately sometimes it's something you're stuck with.

Would that be an official line - because eight working days after my enquiry I'm still awaiting a reply from EMT on why this has happened - if you read upthread, you'd see that this isn't a "one off" it is allegedly 13 units needing urgent repairs without any explanation from anyone official.

 

[LowLevel]

I doubt it as this is a discussion forum for enthusiasts and I post accordingly but it's probably a realistic one. The fleet is decades old, and while EMT's units would appear to be in much better nick than their brethren at Northern FGW they still suffer more in the summer than the winter in my experience. Wiring is tired, engines are tired, transmissions are tired and there isn't much slack in the way of spares available. They are going through heavier exams at the moment as well which won't help availability in the short term but will hopefully looking ahead.

If someone can find a way to make the local and regional services operated by EMT Sprinters suddenly spin a huge profit for fleet renewal then I'm sure it would be well received. Otherwise watching the DFT's next move on unit allocations is about all that can happen.

Urgent repairs can be anything from damage to trains hitting humans or animals to things like speedo faults to total engine failure to electrical issues with the doors. Nobody asks for faults to occur, but they do, and if they do then safety comes first and if appropriate the unit will not be released into traffic. The 0521 is a vulnerable train for short forming because it is a multi set at just the time when services are getting going - if not enough repairs have been completed overnight or something fails in the morning the second set is often the most accessible to 'Nick' to avoid cancellations elsewhere. It is however extremely rare for the train to be cancelled outright.

Other operators fare little better - see Northern, or XC with their 170 fleet or Greater Anglia's local fleet for further examples. There aren't enough new DMU s in the country and it doesn't take much to cause issues.

It was a bad run the other week though and hopefully things will improve!

I should say that I do sympathise with you though - peak time Liverpool/Norwich services in the North West are horrible if they're short formed. At least things like the removal of restrictions on using the 156 fleet if required have helped somewhat.

 

[Crossover]

Saw a new one today - double 156 on the 184x Picc - Norwich. That said, some may see it as an upgrade!

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst I appreciate you are trying to be helpful (LowLevel) you are explaining to me what I'm very aware of - my annoyance isn't over one train being missing, but allegedly 13 units requiring attention without any contingency plan put in place..

That said, I'm riding the earlier 185 from Sheffield today - after the EMT 158's the seats are really uncomfortable - anyway, I digress

 

[LowLevel]

I do appreciate what you're saying but what sort of contingency do you think is missing? At times of low fleet available trains covered by units in multiple are split to avoid cancellations - 13 stopped at once is just very unfortunate.

 

[Haydn1971]

I do appreciate what you're saying but what sort of contingency do you think is missing?

As said earlier - at very least, some kind of information to inform passengers as to which services will be short formed as a worst case - then should units come back from repairs/maintenance early, at least there's a benefit over what's been promised. Even better, a timescale and explains took as to why and what is been done.

Second, and this is very rhetorical - as I know there isn't a reasonable answer - if the ROSCO cannot provide the required number of units to the TOC then penalties should be in place - passing the buck to the DfT isn't an excuse, the ROSCO's have a contractural obligation to ensure they provide what is promised - however greed comes first and there is no contingency to ensure units aren't short formed.

At times of low fleet available trains covered by units in multiple are split to avoid cancellations

Yes, you keep saying that - I'm sorry, as a passenger this is a weak excuse and contingency should be in place to ensure reduced fleet availability doesn't result in short formed trains, especially at peak periods.

13 stopped at once is just very unfortunate.

No, it's incompetent

 

[LowLevel]

You had best get on to your MP to get the DfT to find a way of providing more trains then (preferably ones that aren't already at the end of their design life) !

I do agree a better way of providing information on short formations would be good. The odd tweet is dropped out but something along the lines of that Journey check system you see for other operators would be useful provided it was kept up to date.

There is no other answer unless you're willing to write a large cheque for loss making local and regional services, which nobody appears to be. Running services on a shoe string with life expired rolling stock is inevitably going to result in these kind of problems. There aren't any spares, anywhere, so unless something fundamental changes you (and I, I don't enjoy being shouted and sworn at while wedged in a doorway with my passengers either) are going to have to get used to it as nothing is going to change soon.

Hopefully the direct award will provide some relief.

 

[MCR247]

As said earlier - at very least, some kind of information to inform passengers as to which services will be short formed as a worst case - then should units come back from repairs/maintenance early, at least there's a benefit over what's been promised. Even better, a timescale and explains took as to why and what is been done.

Thats fair enough, they could and should provide a lot better information

Second, and this is very rhetorical - as I know there isn't a reasonable answer - if the ROSCO cannot provide the required number of units to the TOC then penalties should be in place - passing the buck to the DfT isn't an excuse, the ROSCO's have a contractural obligation to ensure they provide what is promised

What do you mean by this? These units aren't on contracts similar to what IEP will be where the ROSCO has to provide x units per day. The ROSCO doesn't 'provide' any units to the TOC, surely the TOC is providing itself with units? The ROSCO has leased 25 158s to EMT, not 25 158s in service each day or anything like that. Its up to EMT what they do with them (to an extent).

- however greed comes first and there is no contingency to ensure units aren't short formed.

What contingency are you expecting? If more units where available, would you rather they sat on Eastcroft/Etches Park as spares so no services are short-formed if there are some failures, or would you rather they were out providing relief to overcrowded trains on the EMT local network?

Yes, you keep saying that - I'm sorry, as a passenger this is a weak excuse and contingency should be in place to ensure reduced fleet availability doesn't result in short formed trains, especially at peak periods.

As I said above, realistically how are you going to ensure reduced fleet availability doesn't result in short forms? For 1 or 2 extra units out of service, then yes I agree, but 13?

 

[bunnahabhain]

As said earlier - at very least, some kind of information to inform passengers as to which services will be short formed as a worst case

Short forming are posted out on twitter, which is run 24/7. I suggest you follow @emtrains.

 

[Starmill]

I don't think "loss-making local services" is awfully accurate for the description of the route in question! The EMT franchise as it stands should be quite capable of cross-subsidising empty 1-coach trains in Lincolnshire from the London services. There's clearly a very strong case for modern rolling stock on the Liverpool route - if there isn't why does TransPennine use it? No blank cheques needed, just a bit of better attitude from DfT. Not that either are remotley likely so I guess it's all a touch irrelevant.

 

[Haydn1971]

Short forming are posted out on twitter, which is run 24/7. I suggest you follow @emtrains.

Just Twitter ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I said above, realistically how are you going to ensure reduced fleet availability doesn't result in short forms? For 1 or 2 extra units out of service, then yes I agree, but 13?

To be fair, I don't believe there are 13 of 25 units out of service - so yes, I do feel that EMT should have contingency to deal with units being taken out of service for repairs, be that their problem or the ROSCO, I don't really care either way.

Passing the buck on service level is just symptomatic of an industry still stuck in the pre-privatisation mindset - the DfT have failed to ensure these issues are dealt with historically in franchises, the TOCs have failed to ensure this quality element is in their delivery plans and ROSCOs have failed to ensure their direct customers (the TOCs) are suitably looked after when the rolling stock that they were effectively given back in the 90's hasn't been maintained (or replaced) because they are too busy milking off the profit and don't give a damn about their responsibilities. The lead needs to come from the DfT and the message needs to be clear, provide a service that you are supposed to provide without excuses.

 

[NSEFAN]

To be fair, I don't believe there are 13 of 25 units out of service - so yes, I do feel that EMT should have contingency to deal with units being taken out of service for repairs, be that their problem or the ROSCO, I don't really care either way.

What if there isn't any suitable stock to go around? The fact Northern has had to get 37s + Mk2 carriages for the Cumbrian coast tells us that there isn't anything to hand to fix this problem quickly. All we can hope is that when the Express Sprinters are replaced the new fleet of trains will have significantly more carriages.

In the mean time, SWT has very good reliability with their 158s and 159s. I understand this is due to having enough slack in the fleet that they can cope if there is a sudden increase in failures. Presumably EMT don't have this privilege and so we're seeing the end result in short-formed trains. That said, SWT is due to lose a few units. I believe at least one unit has already gone from SWT to EMT. It will be interesting to see if reliability can be maintained with less slack. I don't doubt the ability of Salisbury's fitters but as has been said these trains are coming to the end of their design life.

The lead needs to come from the DfT and the message needs to be clear, provide a service that you are supposed to provide without excuses.

Please don't ask for the DfT to "take the lead". They will interpret this as "agree to do a load of stuff for political reasons, then ask the railwaymen if it's actually possible".

But I agree with you on principle.

 

[Benno]

I've just checked the @EMtrains twitter account for the 14th July and the information about the shortform was there for all to see

https://twitter.com/EMTrains/status/620865420963246080
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think "loss-making local services" is awfully accurate for the description of the route in question!

The Liverpool to Norwich route is not a profitable route. Liverpool to Nottingham may just make a profit but once you add in the Norwich portion the profits drop. Perhaps that is why the DFT wanted to split the route and give Liverpool to Nottingham to TPE

The EMT franchise as it stands should be quite capable of cross-subsidising empty 1-coach trains in Lincolnshire from the London services.

It pretty much does that which is why EMT barely makes a profit once the Subsidies and Premium Payments are removed from the financial equation.

The trouble is we live in a Privatised Railway world where an operator will not take on a franchise unless a profit can be made for it's shareholders.

 

[222007]

At the risk of being shot down here but surely its better to have a 2car train turn if 4 are not available rather than the train being Cancelled? Yes its frustrating but at least the train still runs

 

[Mugby]

It pretty much does that which is why EMT barely makes a profit once the Subsidies and Premium Payments are removed from the financial equation.

The trouble is we live in a Privatised Railway world where an operator will not take on a franchise unless a profit can be made for it's shareholders.

Does that mean that Stagecoach will probably not bother with it again when the franchise is due for renewal?

 

[Qwerty133]

I think part of the problem is that the 158s are too intensively on work that is demanding for them.
Maybe the number of units in the EMT local fleet out of use at any one time could be reduced if the 158s got more days on lighter work, and the 156s got out on longer distance services more often.
How could this be achieved?
Some 156s being booked to operate Liverpool to Norwich services, with 158s replacing them on less demanding routes such as Derby to Crewe and Nottingham to Matlock, if for example 3 158 diagrams became 156s and vice versa, the 156s would get out around 1.5 times a week on average, and the 158s would get a lighter day each week.

 

[Haydn1971]

I've just checked the @EMtrains twitter account for the 14th July and the information about the shortform was there for all to see

Which is fine if you use Twitter - actually telling their staff would be a better start, along with getting some A4 sized posters in places where passengers can read them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the risk of being shot down here but surely its better to have a 2car train turn if 4 are not available rather than the train being Cancelled? Yes its frustrating but at least the train still runs

That's very true and I'm sure it's appreciated - by the people not crammed into the vestibules or the passengers that can't get to their seat reservations because of the passengers stood along the centre of the carriages glaring at the lucky people sat down

 

[bunnahabhain]

In that case would you prefer your train cancelled so that other passengers services are fully formed? You are aware that contingency plans are in place and you are experiencing one of them which will affect the least number of people.

Also the suggestion of Newark to Crewe being less intensive is wrong, local stopping services will knacker the units up far more than a 250 mile journey with a dozen stops.

 

[Haydn1971]

In that case would you prefer your train cancelled so that other passengers services are fully formed?

No, as I've alluded to throughout this thread - I'd prefer there to be a full service of four carriages in the peak periods, with units taken into maintenance at times when their loss wouldn't impact on passengers - that could be out of the peak, during the night or probably more sensibly, over a sensible period rather than going, oops, we've failed to maintain these units so need to fix 13 in a short period of time and damn the passengers.

You are aware that contingency plans are in place and you are experiencing one of them which will affect the least number of people.

I'm well aware that someone at EMT/ROSCO will consider this a "contingency" plan - I however as a passenger don't feel enough has been done to ensure adequate service provision or information.

 

[Philip C]

Having on one occasion (in 2013) travelled from Liverpool South Parkway to Norwich on a two-car train, and on other occasions seen the problems faced by passengers seeking space on eastbound trains at Stockport, I feel that the fundamental point is "Are the current arrangements fit for purpose?"

For whatever reason, and whoever is to blame, passengers are paying their fares, turning up for their journey and being faced with an often inadequate product. There is no future in this.

I suspect that we all have friends and acquaintances who rarely travel by train. We may have told them how easy it is and how cheap it may be; but if standing from, say, Stockport to Chesterfield (and not even standing in comfortable circumstances) is what they experience then they will not do it again. So if it is EMT's fault or the DfT's or Network Rail's or anybody else's or any combination is not important; what is important is that it gets sorted out and sorted out quickly.

Occasional failure to deliver is one thing; persistent, frequent and seemingly interminable failure is another. Playing unrealistic games where resources, on paper, deliver a good service but in practice do not isn't good enough.

What do people think is needed to restore a reliable service?

 

[45107]

In the modern privatised railway, fleet assets are generally used to their maximum and there is not adequate spare stock sat around as a contingency.
EMT plans to operate a local service with 51 of the 58 sets available for traffic (ie 7 stopped). On the day in question there were further failures that resulted in 6 more units falling down.
Short of cancelling services, the only option is to short form services, with the Nottingham-Liverpool services generally taking priority for remaining fully formed (4 vehicles). This is not always possible.
The ROSCOs have no say in the day to day provision of sets. They provide a set number of units to the TOC at the start of the franchise (as stipultated by the DfT) and it is up to the TOC to manage this resource.

The contingency plan when there is a shortfall is to shortform. The only other option is to cancel services. There are no longer spare 15x sets sitting about doing nothing - an extra 158 was acquired from SWT to enable the Matlock-Nottingham service to be extended to Newark Castle.
In an ideal world there would be a 'break glass in emergency' unit available but this is not feasible.
'Suspension' of electrification schemes will halt any planned cascades of diesel units and will only led to further issues.

Perhaps the OP could state what contingency EMT should have when failures occur in order to avoid shortforming services ?

 

[MCR247]

Perhaps the OP could state what contingency EMT should have when failures occur in order to avoid shortforming services ?

I asked the same question...

 

[Camden]

The Liverpool to Norwich route is not a profitable route. Liverpool to Nottingham may just make a profit but once you add in the Norwich portion the profits drop. Perhaps that is why the DFT wanted to split the route and give Liverpool to Nottingham to TPE

And the Nottingham to Norwich bit would then go to who? If what you say is true then it would make no sense to create one attractive route and one terrible one.

May I ask, have you seen the profit account for the route? Such information isn't publicly available.

I would politely suggest that the route is most likely to be profitable in its entirety, being patronised to the tune of 6 million passengers annually.

For comparison, Euston to Manchester utilising a Pendolino every 20 minutes throughout the day carries only around 3 million.