Short formed EMT - Nottingham to Liverpool

[43074]

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.

Using 156s wouldn't go down too well with those who use the route. I'm not sure how it reduces the number of units out of use at any one time as it seems you suggest swapping 3x158s for 3x156s so EMT would still have the same number of spare units. Some local turns are pretty intensive anyway as they have short turnarounds to maximise unit utilisation and reduce costs.

The 158s were built for long distance turns such as Liverpool - Norwich; they replaced 156s on the route when new and aren't used any more intensively now than they were in the 1990s under BR on this particular route.

The issue is there isn't enough contingency, but how can you justify leasing costs of approx. £750,000 per vehicle per year as well as fuel and maintenance costs etc. for a unit that you will use ''just in case''.

 

[Haydn1971]

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

Simple really - do not be in a position where 6 units can fail when you already have 7 units out of service. Although I do acknowledge that life at EMT.HQ isn't that easy and the DfT have done bad things and so on... EMT are paid to provide a service, they are not providing that service when 22% of the fleet is out of action - begs the question, why is this happening a few times a week ?

 

[PHILIPE]

Simple really - do not be in a position where 6 units can fail when you already have 7 units out of service. Although I do acknowledge that life at EMT.HQ isn't that easy and the DfT have done bad things and so on... EMT are paid to provide a service, they are not providing that service when 22% of the fleet is out of action - begs the question, why is this happening a few times a week ?

One would need a crystal ball to know that 6 units were going to fail. If you want an improvement and cant accept inforeseen failures, I suggest you present yourself at Eastcroft Depot or Derby, with a spanner in your hand and volunteer to do a fitters shift.

 

[45107]

Simple really - do not be in a position where 6 units can fail when you already have 7 units out of service. Although I do acknowledge that life at EMT.HQ isn't that easy and the DfT have done bad things and so on... EMT are paid to provide a service, they are not providing that service when 22% of the fleet is out of action - begs the question, why is this happening a few times a week ?

Perhaps you could explain how it is possible to prevent equipment failing ?
What magic cure can you offer to the rail industry to avoid this ? I am sure that ROSCO and TOC engineers will welcome your solution with open arms.
How much will this cost ?
How much will fares rise to provide this ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Using 156s wouldn't go down too well with those who use the route. I'm not sure how it reduces the number of units out of use at any one time as it seems you suggest swapping 3x158s for 3x156s so EMT would still have the same number of spare units. Some local turns are pretty intensive anyway as they have short turnarounds to maximise unit utilisation and reduce costs.

The 158s were built for long distance turns such as Liverpool - Norwich; they replaced 156s on the route when new and aren't used any more intensively now than they were in the 1990s under BR on this particular route.

The issue is there isn't enough contingency, but how can you justify leasing costs of approx. £750,000 per vehicle per year as well as fuel and maintenance costs etc. for a unit that you will use ''just in case''.

Issue with using 156s instead of 158 is the maximum line speed -75mph vice 90mph.
A good set and a good driver will lose minimal time from start to end, but will lose time along the ECML, parts of the Erewash Valley and Hope Valley.
By planning to use 156 instead of 158, the timetable would need to be recast to cater for the longer sectional running times. There is then the knock on effect to services operated by other TOCs.

 

[Bungle965]

The use of the 158 on this route is not ideal size wise i am still scarred from my experience from Peterborough to Manchester when it was a double set but still had to stand almost all of the way to Manchester. The ideal thing for this route would be 222s but that is unlikely to happen in the next couple of years because of the 222 being tied up on the Mainline services and them not being allowed east of ely.
Sam

 

[45107]

​

The use of the 158 on this route is not ideal size wise i am still scarred from my experience from Peterborough to Manchester when it was a double set but still had to stand almost all of the way to Manchester. The ideal thing for this route would be 222s but that is unlikely to happen in the next couple of years because of the 222 being tied up on the Mainline services and them not being allowed east of ely.
Sam

A 4 car 222 has marginally more seats (181) than a 158 (140). Admittedly, it has more luggage space.
In order to provide the seating capacity provided by 2 x 158 between Nottingham & Liverpool, a 7 car 222 (342) would need to provided.
Until any cascade as a result of delayed electrification, nothing is going to change

 

[Bungle965]

​

A 4 car 222 has marginally more seats (181) than a 158 (140). Admittedly, it has more luggage space.
In order to provide the seating capacity provided by 2 x 158 between Nottingham & Liverpool, a 7 car 222 (342) would need to provided.
Until any cascade as a result of delayed electrification, nothing is going to change

The passenger ambiance (if that is a thing) is also better with a 222 than a 158.

An idea that was thinking about was were did emt get 222 from to use for the Nottingham to Liverpool services during an event (can not remember which) and would it not make sense for even a couple of the busiest services to be replaced by a 222 or would that simply not be possible.
Sam

 

[45107]

The passenger ambiance (if that is a thing) is also better with a 222 than a 158.

An idea that was thinking about was were did emt get 222 from to use for the Nottingham to Liverpool services during an event (can not remember which) and would it not make sense for even a couple of the busiest services to be replaced by a 222 or would that simply not be possible.
Sam

Agree that the comfort factor is better on a 222 than 15x.

222 have been used on Grand National day in the past - a Saturday where less HSTs are required and maintenance can be rehashed to cater for a one off. (Same with use on Derby-Crewe services during WCML Watford blockages). However due to route/traction knowledge issues, two sets of crew are required.
Insufficient spare sets (and crew) in the week to allow this to happen n a regular basis.

Unfortunately the modern railway does not generally provide spare resources to cater for unplanned circumstances.

 

[Bungle965]

I suppose then that there is no other option than to just put up with it for the time being, not the best i can understand. But hey this is the railways its a fun and games
Sam

 

[Starmill]

The 1744 from Nottingham to Liverpool was a 2 car this evening at Manchester. Absolutely heaving and standing in the aisles.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Simple really - do not be in a position where 6 units can fail when you already have 7 units out of service. Although I do acknowledge that life at EMT.HQ isn't that easy and the DfT have done bad things and so on... EMT are paid to provide a service, they are not providing that service when 22% of the fleet is out of action - begs the question, why is this happening a few times a week ?

Because the train you catch is one of the better ones to take a unit from. It won't leave people behind unlike the following two services. Another service that is sometimes short formed to enable other ones to run are the 0605 Nottingham to Worksop and return.

 

[Jonfun]

The 1744 from Nottingham to Liverpool was a 2 car this evening at Manchester. Absolutely heaving and standing in the aisles.

That's the 1937 Picc to Liverpool - isn't that always a 2 car, same as with the 2037?

 

[Haydn1971]

Perhaps you could explain how it is possible to prevent equipment failing ?

Turning this around, perhaps EMT could explain why 22% of its 158 fleet are out of action on a single day - I'm not being paid to provide a service, EMT are.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One would need a crystal ball to know that 6 units were going to fail.

Well no, when it's happening on a regular basis, it would seem you wouldn't need a crystal ball - however we are making guesses on what's actually happening - first someone suggested 13 units are out of action, now someone is saying 7 units are out of action and on one day 6 units failed - 7 units is still 12% of their fleet - I've yet to hear a reply from EMT, I'm reading all sorts of excuses in this thread apologising for what appears to be incompetence by the DfT and the ROSCO for not ensuring a service level agreement is in place to ensure x number of seats on a given service - I'm pretty sure the fitters do all they can, I'm pretty sure the schedulers do all they can first thing in the morning - however the buck needs to go somewhere and at the moment it's mostly shrugged shoulders and intake of breath saying it is what it is - clearly, that's not good enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately the modern railway does not generally provide spare resources to cater for unplanned circumstances.

So, let me get this right... Six units fail, no spare resources for replacements - OK, that's acceptable to a degree, although could be mitigated with some shuffles to ensure peak services are fully formed.

But then seven units are taken out of service, which is "planned" and nothing is put in place to ensure their removal doesn't impact on the full service - for example like when a unit or six fail one morning ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because the train you catch is one of the better ones to take a unit from. It won't leave people behind unlike the following two services. Another service that is sometimes short formed to enable other ones to run are the 0605 Nottingham to Worksop and return.

Well clearly something isn't working when there's short formed (half a train) being used in the peak

 

[bunnahabhain]

This is seriously just going around and around in circles now. You aren't happy that your train is short formed, there are no answers that will satisfy, so there is no further discussion to be gained from continuing this thread further. There are experienced railwaymen who have given you very reasoned responses on here and yet you still don't feel its good enough. Unfortunately we aren't Hogwarts Railways and we can't magic up a dozen A4s and bogies to come out just in case your train is shortformed.

 

[Haydn1971]

This is seriously just going around and around in circles now. You aren't happy that your train is short formed, there are no answers that will satisfy, so there is no further discussion to be gained from continuing this thread further. There are experienced railwaymen who have given you very reasoned responses on here and yet you still don't feel its good enough. Unfortunately we aren't Hogwarts Railways and we can't magic up a dozen A4s and bogies to come out just in case your train is shortformed.

Patronising doesn't help either I'm afraid - I'm not some numpty asking dumb questions, I'm asking reasonable questions and getting excuses from people that don't really know the answers :-/

 

[PHILIPE]

Patronising doesn't help either I'm afraid - I'm not some numpty asking dumb questions, I'm asking reasonable questions and getting excuses from people that don't really know the answers :-/

A lot of people have given you answers re short forming but you just refuse to accept them.

 

[Haydn1971]

A lot of people have given you answers re short forming but you just refuse to accept them.

To be fair, what has been given are excuses for short forming - we all want improvements to our railways, but whilst we continue to make excuses for the top level organisations that actually run the railways, the organisations that operate the railways will continue to get hassle from the people that use the railways.

 

[NSEFAN]

Patronising doesn't help either I'm afraid - I'm not some numpty asking dumb questions, I'm asking reasonable questions and getting excuses from people that don't really know the answers :-/

But people have explained. There's limited resources and poor planning from higher up which has led to a chronic shortage of rolling stock. The result has been a fleet of trains which is maximised in usage, with less down time for maintenance and a reduced reliability as a result of this. You seem to be asking that scheduled maintenance of otherwise functional trains is cancelled, so that short-formed services are reduced in the short-term. If you do this you will just pull the reliability down further in the long-term and make the whole situation worse. The problem is systematic and not something that can be easily or properly solved by day-to-day juggling of units.

To be fair, what has been given are excuses for short forming - we all want improvements to our railways, but whilst we continue to make excuses for the top level organisations that actually run the railways, the organisations that operate the railways will continue to get hassle from the people that use the railways.

Again, the railway needs national strategy and planning in order to solve these problem. Perhaps we need to put more pressure on the DfT as they are ultimately responsible for this mess (and like to muddy the waters about it). What I think others have objected to is the implication that EMT alone could do anything about this situation, which really they can't as their franchise shall soon expire.

 

[Haydn1971]

Again, the railway needs national strategy and planning in order to solve these problem. Perhaps we need to put more pressure on the DfT as they are ultimately responsible for this mess (and like to muddy the waters about it).

Agreed. Well I've been banging that drum 27 years of my working life ! There is a blip every so often of investment speculation - I'm hopeful at the moment that investment in franchises and local transport investment funds is here to stay.

What I think others have objected to is the implication that EMT alone could do anything about this situation, which really they can't as their franchise shall soon expire.

Well, they could - putting things out on Twitter is a step in the right direction, but ultimately staff on the trains do not know what's happening and there are no notices on trains informing passengers what's going off about the "planned" works.

"Others" have pushed this discussion thread into a dire state of affairs thread about rail investment and tight margins - all of which I'm aware of given I work in the civil engineering business and have been involved in high level work for transport investment funds - all of which pushed more investment in track, stations, signals and rolling stock.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'm hopeful at the moment that investment in franchises and local transport investment funds is here to stay.

I hope so too. I believe the government at least now understands that public transport is important, although they don't always make the most sensible decisions. It would also be good if the investment was in the form of a rolling programme, which would be more efficient and help maintain a skilled workforce to deliver it, as opposed to being given a pot of gold and told to spare no expense.

Well, they could - putting things out on Twitter is a step in the right direction, but ultimately staff on the trains do not know what's happening and there are no notices on trains informing passengers what's going off about the "planned" works.

I agree that more public information would be a good thing when trains are short formed. I was more referring to a proper fix to the problem, i.e. more trains. The DfT has made it clear it wants to be more directly involved in national rolling stock strategy so it's now up to them to deal with that one.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Patronising doesn't help either I'm afraid - I'm not some numpty asking dumb questions, I'm asking reasonable questions and getting excuses from people that don't really know the answers :-/

That sounds like a bit of an excessive reaction. There is nothing wrong with your original question or premise: yes, the advertised service, which includes the requirements in the background for train lengths, should be provided but the situation is not perfect so it doesn't always happen. People have given reasons and I don't think they are excuses - unless, I suppose, they are trying to defend EMT - as they are just a description of reality. There are far too many defensive responses on this forum but on this occasion it's been pretty measured, even if it is unfortunately not what you want to hear. As someone pointed out, to my surprise, EMT regional services have no post-BR rolling stock so it's a challenge to keep it all going, and the stock they have been allowed to have, and the timetable they are franchised to run, requires an availability that cannot realistically always be met. It's that simple - and it's that annoying.

 

[dosxuk]

Are the 4 car services actually a franchise requirement? If so, when was it added to the franchise, as when EMT started they were specifically set as 2 car services by the DfT. I've been under the impression that franchise-wise, nothing had changed, and the additional cars are provided on a best-effort basis, rather than as an updated requirement.

 

[Haydn1971]

That sounds like a bit of an excessive reaction.

To this ?

Unfortunately we aren't Hogwarts Railways and we can't magic up a dozen A4s and bogies to come out just in case your train is shortformed.

Reads as pretty patronising to me.

 

[dosxuk]

To this ?
Reads as pretty patronising to me.

Not really in context of you demanding the ROSCO compensates the TOC for meeting their requirements, or that all EMT should have done when faced with 13 failures is to have not let them fail.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Reads as pretty patronising to me.

Then maybe you need to start listening to people instead of running around in circles demanding more and more answers to questions people have already answered.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not really in context of you demanding the ROSCO compensates the TOC for meeting their requirements, or that all EMT should have done when faced with 13 failures is to have not let them fail.

Haha... Really ? If your hire car breaks down and the hire company tells you tough, there aren't any other cars to give you - is that satisfactory ? I doubt you'd be happy with that.

 

[dosxuk]

Haha... Really ? If your hire car breaks down and the hire company tells you tough, there aren't any other cars to give you - is that satisfactory ? I doubt you'd be happy with that.

Wouldn't have any choice if the maintenance was my responsibility.

As others have said, the deal with the ROSCO is not like the new IEP ones where the ROSCO themselves have to provide a set number of working vehicles to operate a set number of diagrams. EMT themselves are responsible for the day-to-day upkeep, maintenance and availability.

 

[MCR247]

Haha... Really ? If your hire car breaks down and the hire company tells you tough, there aren't any other cars to give you - is that satisfactory ? I doubt you'd be happy with that.

But that isn't the same thing If I had a car on a 2 year lease where I was maintaining it, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I went up to them expecting compensation...

 

[Haydn1971]

Slipping back off into that metaphorical siding again aren't we, defending a situation that doesn't work for anyone except the ROSCOs share holders

 

[NSEFAN]

Slipping back off into that metaphorical siding again aren't we, defending a situation that doesn't work for anyone except the ROSCOs share holders

There's a difference between defence and explanation. Just because people may accept that a situation is the way it is, it doesn't mean they're happy with it, or that they're in a position to do anything about it.