Speculation regarding East Midlands Franchise 2019:

[NoOnesFool]

What a ridiculous post - York, Newcastle, Doncaster, Darlington are of no importance then?

Doncaster isn't anywhere near as important as Sheffield, Nottingham or Leicester! All three are university cities.

 

[yorksrob]

One way or another you either end up disappointing one of the big cities by making all of their services "slow" south of Leicester or you end up with some 15/45 minute frequencies (instead of simpler half hourly ones). Not an easy square to circle (and I don't think going back to the Turbostar days where services waited ten minutes at Leicester to be overtaken is the answer - the ECML/ WCML/ GWML have relatively similar journey times on the regular off-peak services to Leeds/ Manchester/ Bristol, so I don't think it'd be popular to go back to Sheffield/ Nottingham having just one proper London service per hour, plus a stopper that runs within a few minutes of it and then waits ages at Leicester to be overtaken by a service to the other city).

There's huge expanse of what used to be quadruple track between Leicester and Wigston Junction.

Couldn't they relay some of this (or a big loop) and have a Nottingham fast pass a Sheffield stopper (and visa versa) on the move ?

 

[Killingworth]

Doncaster isn't anywhere near as important as Sheffield, Nottingham or Leicester! All three are university cities.

This has become an off topic diversionary route (like HS2 to Sheffield) but let's not overlook the Anglia Ruskin University campus at Peterborough. York's university may be of relatively recent foundation but is among our best. Durham University is one of the longest established in Britain, long before Sheffield, Nottingham or Newcastle (originally Kings College, Durham).

 

[Cavan]

Peterborough has a population of about 200,000 Doesn't it count?

Of course, I was just highlighting the absurdity of a previous poster saying the only places of "importance" on the ECML were Edinburgh and Leeds!

 

[Cavan]

Doncaster isn't anywhere near as important as Sheffield, Nottingham or Leicester! All three are university cities.

My point was that it is ridiculous just saying the only places of importance on the ECML are Edinburgh and Leeds. Not sure what point you are trying to make really? That cities with universities are somehow more important than others? What service Doncaster has is irrelevant to the services on the MML anyway.

 

[cactustwirly]

What a ridiculous post - York, Newcastle, Doncaster, Darlington are of no importance then?

Why is it ridiculous?
Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield are much bigger, and more important cities than York, Peterborough etc

 

[jw]

The last thread on this topic was shut down for wandering off the subject - 2 pages in and it's happening again - can we stick to the matter at hand, please?

 

[cle]

Why is it ridiculous?
Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield are much bigger, and more important cities than York, Peterborough etc

You have to consider 'rail terms' of importance, not just the city itself - even why York has higher usage than Newcastle and Sheffield, even though it's obviously a smaller city. It has more tourists, is a famous rail head and crucially, many transfers.

Hence why Doncaster and Peterborough have higher use than Derby, and around that of Leicester. Some populations don't seem to travel by rail as much (Bradford for instance), or use other stations - a lot of the ECML main stations punch above their weight in this regards, as the journeys are quick and comfortable, and people don't like to change.

 

[Jozhua]

The last thread on this topic was shut down for wandering off the subject - 2 pages in and it's happening again - can we stick to the matter at hand, please?

Agreed, let's not argue about whether different routes out of the East Midlands area are of importance!

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The unquestionable priorities here are:
- Improved rolling stock for Intercity services (not least because the HSTs on the fast Nottingham trains do cart around fresh air during the day a lot of the time and become remarkably empty at East Mids Parkway with Megabus) with more coaches for local services and getting rid of portion working.
- Putting Corby onto the Thameslink network and taking advantage of the improved Bedford - Kettering route freeing up vital platform capacity at Bedford.
- Connectivity with East West Rail Link at Bedford (potentially meaning services will need to 'slow down' a touch south of Leicester with a Bedford call.
- New or at least post-1994 diesel units for the local lines
- New or if desperate post-1994 diesel units for the regional stuff

And as an interesting aside, something that quickly got punched together for an off-peak pathing usage. Assuming the Thameslink services go off to Corby, that covers the 'hole' in the Bedford > Wellingborough > Kettering connectivity, as well as giving fast journeys from Bedford (Thameslink and East West) to Leicester and to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. Luton isn't included due to the fact that connections can be made at Bedford and the Airport is arguably more in demand from off-peak passengers. It also provides the benefit of connectivity for Lincoln and converting the existing Leicester - Lincoln to Intercity ops and the use of the slow lines for that train allows on-route overtaking instead of a lengthy dwell at Leicester.

 

[LowLevel]

The unquestionable priorities here are:
- Improved rolling stock for Intercity services (not least because the HSTs on the fast Nottingham trains do cart around fresh air during the day a lot of the time and become remarkably empty at East Mids Parkway with Megabus) with more coaches for local services and getting rid of portion working.
- Putting Corby onto the Thameslink network and taking advantage of the improved Bedford - Kettering route freeing up vital platform capacity at Bedford.
- Connectivity with East West Rail Link at Bedford (potentially meaning services will need to 'slow down' a touch south of Leicester with a Bedford call.
- New or at least post-1994 diesel units for the local lines
- New or if desperate post-1994 diesel units for the regional stuff

And as an interesting aside, something that quickly got punched together for an off-peak pathing usage. Assuming the Thameslink services go off to Corby, that covers the 'hole' in the Bedford > Wellingborough > Kettering connectivity, as well as giving fast journeys from Bedford (Thameslink and East West) to Leicester and to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. Luton isn't included due to the fact that connections can be made at Bedford and the Airport is arguably more in demand from off-peak passengers. It also provides the benefit of connectivity for Lincoln and converting the existing Leicester - Lincoln to Intercity ops and the use of the slow lines for that train allows on-route overtaking instead of a lengthy dwell at Leicester.
View attachment 58577

Very few of the above would appear to be the DfT's priorities looking at the invitation to tender.

No weighting for new local or regional trains, either a refurb or new is permitted but you don't get anything extra for new trains. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see refurbished class 158 retained.

Leicester to Lincoln becomes Leicester to Nottingham and Nottingham to Grimsby Town.

Corby is specified for high quality electric units (widely slated to be 387 or 379) and retained within the franchise.

 

[whhistle]

The MML is the primary route connecting London with Sheffield (3rd largest city in England), Leicester (8th) and Nottingham (11th). That's of far greater importance than the GEML (Norwich is the largest city on the route at 32nd) or the Chiltern route (which isn't the primary route to any city of note).

Perhaps so, but it was discussed in another thread that the operator of that route doesn't really provide a true Intercity service in regards to the First Class offering.
Free tea, coffee, buscuits vs a light meal or even full meals.
I understand there are specific "breakfast" trains, yet on the West Coast, every train is a breakfast train. West Coast has a better provision at stations, where as the FC lounges on the MML involve slightly better seating, yet more tea and coffee.
There's no argument, it's a considerable downgrade.
Perhaps Stagecoach isn't "virgin" enough to get DfT/NR to upgrade the line to something meaningful. The small upgrades here and there seem to be taking years do to, and when the line was closed between Leicester and Bedford last year, most of that wasn't for the benefit of EMT.

 

[edwin_m]

There's huge expanse of what used to be quadruple track between Leicester and Wigston Junction.

Couldn't they relay some of this (or a big loop) and have a Nottingham fast pass a Sheffield stopper (and visa versa) on the move ?

Doesn't really work because there is only one stop on the potential 4-track section, Leicester itself (stops on fast trains at Syston are improbable), and both trains stop there. So the only way of overtaking would be to extend the stopping time of the slower train. There is a plan to relay this 4-track section but it's optimised for east-west trains with a flyover at Wigston giving conflict-free access to the Nuneaton line. This means that using it for overtaking MML trains would cause flat junction conflicts.

The unquestionable priorities here are:
- Improved rolling stock for Intercity services (not least because the HSTs on the fast Nottingham trains do cart around fresh air during the day a lot of the time and become remarkably empty at East Mids Parkway with Megabus) with more coaches for local services and getting rid of portion working.
- Putting Corby onto the Thameslink network and taking advantage of the improved Bedford - Kettering route freeing up vital platform capacity at Bedford.
- Connectivity with East West Rail Link at Bedford (potentially meaning services will need to 'slow down' a touch south of Leicester with a Bedford call.
- New or at least post-1994 diesel units for the local lines
- New or if desperate post-1994 diesel units for the regional stuff

And as an interesting aside, something that quickly got punched together for an off-peak pathing usage. Assuming the Thameslink services go off to Corby, that covers the 'hole' in the Bedford > Wellingborough > Kettering connectivity, as well as giving fast journeys from Bedford (Thameslink and East West) to Leicester and to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. Luton isn't included due to the fact that connections can be made at Bedford and the Airport is arguably more in demand from off-peak passengers. It also provides the benefit of connectivity for Lincoln and converting the existing Leicester - Lincoln to Intercity ops and the use of the slow lines for that train allows on-route overtaking instead of a lengthy dwell at Leicester.
View attachment 58577

I'd say the most important station south of Kettering for northward connections is actually Luton Airport Parkway, as East Midlands airport has a pretty restricted choice of flights and access to Heathrow or Manchester airports isn't great either. From personal experience and observation quite a few people use the hourly EMT call to/from the north. I'd say the semi-fasts to/from Leicester and beyond should stop there and then run fast to Kettering where they should make good connections off the Corby services to maintain the northward links for Bedford and Wellingborough.

I'd also keep the Corby trains as a higher-quality option rather than Thameslink standard with ironing boards and no tables. These could provide a premium service at Bedford and one of the Luton stations, perhaps St Albans as well, but would require differential fares which could be enforced via the barriers at St Pancras. Stopping these trains plus the two semi-fasts at Luton Airport Parkway could give a regular-ish 4TPH "airport express" type service without attempting to fit in a dedicated Gatwick-type operation.

 

[whhistle]

As for the "Intercity" services... my question would be whether to focus on maximising the length of trains in line with platforms at St Pancras or trying to have shorter trains able to cope at places like Beeston (possibly involving portion working)

This is where it would be good to go back to the older timetable where local 2/3 coach (would need perhaps 5 coaches now though) trains stopped at places like Beeston, but the longer intercity trains focus on the larger stations.
There would be a few exceptions like Loughborough because of students, but you don't need to stop every "express" train there.
However continuing stopping all trains at Leicester is a good plan as you can always change there whether northbound or southbound, especially as and when Leicester get's it's new platform (although may as well see if you can fit two in and build them together!

Why is it ridiculous?
Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield are much bigger, and more important cities than York, Peterborough etc

If the DfT / local councils / Network Rail thought they were important, surely they'd have ploughed loads more money into the MML. But no.

 

[yorksrob]

Doesn't really work because there is only one stop on the potential 4-track section, Leicester itself (stops on fast trains at Syston are improbable), and both trains stop there. So the only way of overtaking would be to extend the stopping time of the slower train. There is a plan to relay this 4-track section but it's optimised for east-west trains with a flyover at Wigston giving conflict-free access to the Nuneaton line. This means that using it for overtaking MML trains would cause flat junction conflicts.

I'd say the most important station south of Kettering for northward connections is actually Luton Airport Parkway, as East Midlands airport has a pretty restricted choice of flights and access to Heathrow or Manchester airports isn't great either. From personal experience and observation quite a few people use the hourly EMT call to/from the north. I'd say the semi-fasts to/from Leicester and beyond should stop there and then run fast to Kettering where they should make good connections off the Corby services to maintain the northward links for Bedford and Wellingborough.

I'd also keep the Corby trains as a higher-quality option rather than Thameslink standard with ironing boards and no tables. These could provide a premium service at Bedford and one of the Luton stations, perhaps St Albans as well, but would require differential fares which could be enforced via the barriers at St Pancras. Stopping these trains plus the two semi-fasts at Luton Airport Parkway could give a regular-ish 4TPH "airport express" type service without attempting to fit in a dedicated Gatwick-type operation.

My thought is that a slow train could get going from Leicester while the fast approaches, rather than hanging around. Similarly, a slow train heading North would have longer to be overtaken by the fast before having to stop.

 

[43074]

The unquestionable priorities here are:
...
- Putting Corby onto the Thameslink network and taking advantage of the improved Bedford - Kettering route freeing up vital platform capacity at Bedford.

That's not a priority in the slightest for anyone, Corby will be staying with East Midlands. Plus platform capacity at Bedford is only really an issue in the peaks, there are 3 platforms for 4 Thameslink services off peak, and in the down direction it doesn't matter anyway as EMT use platform 4, it's not a problem whatsoever.

It also provides the benefit of connectivity for Lincoln and converting the existing Leicester - Lincoln to Intercity ops and the use of the slow lines for that train allows on-route overtaking instead of a lengthy dwell at Leicester.

Really that needs to skip stations between Leicester and Loughborough to do something about the excessive journey time between Leicester and the Newark/Lincoln area, you're better off using the A46 at the moment. Plus those stations only need a 153 off peak (maybe 2 in the peaks), not a 222 on an exceptionally slow London service. Its only connectivity where the connections are genuinely useful.

 

[43074]

This is where it would be good to go back to the older timetable where local 2/3 coach (would need perhaps 5 coaches now though) trains stopped at places like Beeston, but the longer intercity trains focus on the larger stations.
There would be a few exceptions like Loughborough because of students, but you don't need to stop every "express" train there.
However continuing stopping all trains at Leicester is a good plan as you can always change there whether northbound or southbound, especially as and when Leicester get's it's new platform (although may as well see if you can fit two in and build them together!

Loughborough gets a steady flow of long distance traffic all day, not only from the Uni but a wide and quite well heeled catchment area. The fast London and direct Sheffield services have proved very popular.

If the DfT / local councils / Network Rail thought they were important, surely they'd have ploughed loads more money into the MML. But no.

That doesn't mean they are right though does it? The investment is clearly being made (Derby, Corby capacity and electrification, Market Harborough rebuild etc) but the big ticket items (an electrified railway from Bedford to Wakefield/Doncaster and new stock) keep being deferred, it's the situation we have to make do with but frankly of course they deserve better.

 

[yorkie]

As this thread appears to be a suggestions thread, I have moved it to the Speculative Ideas section.

 

[gingertom]

It is, as noted above. I don't reckon you could pack more than the existing four engines into the 'power pack' though, or that engine efficiency will improve sufficiently in the next three or four years to permit an inter-city length Stadler bi-mode with performance to match a class 222 on the Midland Mainline.

Stadler Flirts operate on the continent at 200kph/125mph. They should be capable of putting together an 8 car unit with 3 diesel pods and 6 traction bogies. With 8100 BHP available they would perform rather well on either diesel or electric.

 

[43096]

Stadler Flirts operate on the continent at 200kph/125mph. They should be capable of putting together an 8 car unit with 3 diesel pods and 6 traction bogies. With 8100 BHP available they would perform rather well on either diesel or electric.

It would make more sense to move the diesel pods to the outer ends with cabs - Stadler have the capability to do that now with the Class 68 a good basis.

We could call them “power cars” - Terry Miller was right!

 

[NoOnesFool]

Just a speculative idea:

What would people's opinions be of the next franchisee using the HST sets when they (eventually) get withdrawn as shortened and PRM compliant trains to supplement the local DMU fleet, like GWR has with the 'Castle ' sets? Sure, it would be no use on the Liverpool-Norwich route, as the weight restrictions on the eastern part and the poor acceleration would slow it down too much, but a three coach set could be used else where to provide extra capacity and free up much needed DMUs to prevent short forming on the Liverpool-Norwich route.

Or, do you think that the HST stock should just be scrapped when the next franchisee replaces them? They will after all, be approaching half a century old by the time new stock is built and tested and staff training has been completed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scrap them. They're old, and the conversion projects have proven slow, expensive and not half as viable as they should have been. Better to order new bi-modes.

 

[Jozhua]

Scrap them. They're old, and the conversion projects have proven slow, expensive and not half as viable as they should have been. Better to order new bi-modes.

That sounds sensible! Is it just me or do the HST body-shells seem slightly warped, with loads of bumps on them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That sounds sensible! Is it just me or do the HST body-shells seem slightly warped, with loads of bumps on them?

Mk4 rooflines seem to be similar, I noticed it last weekend.

 

[Iskra]

My idea/speculation:

- Cascaded new-ish EMU's for Corby services.
- Fancy new bi-modes for the inter-city services.
- 222's cascaded to XC for strengthening and to run Cardiff/Nottingham and Birmingham-Stansted services.
- In return XC 170's all go to EMT to strengthen or improve local services along with the 158's released by the transfer of Liverpool-Nottingham to TP.
- HST's all scrapped or retired.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My idea/speculation:

- Cascaded new-ish EMU's for Corby services.
- Fancy new bi-modes for the inter-city services.
- 222's cascaded to XC for strengthening and to run Cardiff/Nottingham and Birmingham-Stansted services.
- In return XC 170's all go to EMT to strengthen or improve local services along with the 158's released by the transfer of Liverpool-Nottingham to TP.
- HST's all scrapped or retired.

I think that would all be a very sensible thing to do. I predict Class 802s for the ICs.

 

[Jozhua]

My idea/speculation:

- Cascaded new-ish EMU's for Corby services.
- Fancy new bi-modes for the inter-city services.
- 222's cascaded to XC for strengthening and to run Cardiff/Nottingham and Birmingham-Stansted services.
- In return XC 170's all go to EMT to strengthen or improve local services along with the 158's released by the transfer of Liverpool-Nottingham to TP.
- HST's all scrapped or retired.

That would work really well! Which means, almost without doubt, the government will not implement it.

 

[Meerkat]

Are the 222s really suitable for those lines with their door layout (accepting they’re more suitable than nothing)?
And aren’t they speed restricted on Peterborough to Cambridge? The obviously answer to that being “well bloody unrestrict it then!”

 

[whhistle]

Are the 222s really suitable for those lines with their door layout (accepting they’re more suitable than nothing)?

But the better acceleration may counteract the *potential* squash at the end doors.
Nobody has done any testing, so they may actually be fine. In fact, you do get a Voyager on the Birmingham to Leicester route occcasionally and the service isn't late when it rolls into the destination, so I'd have thought they'd be okay.

The problem is Stansted.
There's been general murmerings around here that Voyagers simply won't fit into the airport station.
I'd question "well what is it" - IE, are the platforms too close? Or is it just a signal that needs re-sighting?

 

[43055]

My idea/speculation:

- Cascaded new-ish EMU's for Corby services.
- Fancy new bi-modes for the inter-city services.
- 222's cascaded to XC for strengthening and to run Cardiff/Nottingham and Birmingham-Stansted services.
- In return XC 170's all go to EMT to strengthen or improve local services along with the 158's released by the transfer of Liverpool-Nottingham to TP.
- HST's all scrapped or retired.

That is a really good idea. Maybe this could happen if the next XC franchise does not get any brand new trains:

Keep the 170's at XC but transfer the WMR 170's once the new trains arrive.
Local EMT have the 175s from TfW to work alongside the 158's
222's transfer to XC to work alongside the 220/221/HST fleet which gives the potential for most services to be double sets.