Midland Mainline Electrification. What trains?

[bangor-toad]

My prediction:

There will be EMU's used. The proposed / suggested cascade of 91's and Mk4 stock won't happen as it'll be found the maintenance costs will be a bit of a large barrier.

Then there will be need to be a debate or decision, is the MML an intercity route or a commuter route?
I'd suggest that Leicester would count as commuter, Nottingham & Derby are harder to define and Sheffield would count as intercity.
Then it becomes a "simple" question of deciding on a 2+2 arrangement or a 2+3. Oh, the upset this could cause...


For the long distance commuter stock the Desiro or Electostar families would be fine. Quick acceleration is good and with 2+2 seating are quite comfortable. But they're limited to 100/100mph. So for the fast, or longer, services perhaps a derivative of the 395 would do?

Yes, some of the sections are rather curvy. I'd guess there's a better business case to just accepting some speed restrictions around those without the need for tilt equipment rather than to go down the whole tilt enabling route...

It'll all go to EMU operation I'm sure. With some careful planning and thought there could even be some splitting of services. The SR has been able to split and join units without fuss or years so it can be done. This'd give opportunities for greater utilisation of sets. Perhaps things like:
London - Kettering. Split to Corby and Leicester.
London - Leicester. Split to Nottingham and Derby.
London - Derby. Split. Rear 6 coaches terminate. Front 6 continue to Sheffield.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My prediction:
There will be EMU's used. The proposed / suggested cascade of 91's and Mk4 stock won't happen as it'll be found the maintenance costs will be a bit of a large barrier.

Then there will be need to be a debate or decision, is the MML an intercity route or a commuter route?
I'd suggest that Leicester would count as commuter, Nottingham & Derby are harder to define and Sheffield would count as intercity.
Then it becomes a "simple" question of deciding on a 2+2 arrangement or a 2+3. Oh, the upset this could cause...

Very well argued. I think Norwich will go the same way.
What about the IEP commuter option for MML, as proposed for Northampton/Cambridge/Kings Lynn?
There will be a ready-made depot at Doncaster.

I wish someone would articulate the reasoning behind tilt on the WCML and nowhere else.
There are many routes, eg like MML, west of Taunton, north of Darlington etc which would benefit from tilt, but it never seems to be an option.
I personally think tilt works very well on the WCML and should be considered elsewhere.

 

[TrainBoy98]

Leeds does not need 2tph from St Pancras, giving Sheffield 3tph! At most, you'd give it 1tph, with another 1tph terminating at Sheffield

Ah, ok, I wasnt too sure about this bit and thought it might have been overkill. I didnt know whether to keep the 2tph to Sheffield and add an extra to Leeds as well as extending the fast Sheffield or to just extend a fast one. Thanks for correcting me there, as said I wasnt too sure.

 

[Qwerty133]

My prediction:

Then there will be need to be a debate or decision, is the MML an intercity route or a commuter route?
I'd suggest that Leicester would count as commuter,

Can't see Leicester loosing an intercity style service (and I would campaign against anynreduction in our 4 intercity services per hour provided by inter city stock)

Nottingham & Derby are harder to define and Sheffield would count as intercity.
Then it becomes a "simple" question of deciding on a 2+2 arrangement or a 2+3. Oh, the upset this could cause...

Nottingham and Derby (as well as Leicester) definatly need intercity stock I could just imagine what would be said if I suggested to take intercity stock away from Euston to Bormingham New Street and replace it with more 350s (and under you're argument why not- the journey time/length is around the same) .and as I've said it needs to be intercity stock the question of 2+3 seating can go straight out of the window.

So for the fast, or longer, services perhaps a derivative of the 395 would do?

395s are commuter stock and therefore not appropriate.

It'll all go to EMU operation I'm sure. With some careful planning and thought there could even be some splitting of services. The SR has been able to split and join units without fuss or years so it can be done. This'd give opportunities for greater utilisation of sets. Perhaps things like:
London - Kettering. Split to Corby and Leicester.
London - Leicester. Split to Nottingham and Derby.
London - Derby. Split. Rear 6 coaches terminate. Front 6 continue to Sheffield.

Which stations do you suggest the platforms can easily be extended to 12 cars as I can't think of many that could. I'm also guessing that you've don't use the MML as 6 cars to Sheffield as its main service would not be enough especially at peak times and you are suggesting cutting the service level to Sheffield to 1tph cutting its service by 6coaches per hour. There are currently 5 paths used- why use just 3 of these 5 paths. Plus corby services are currently air carts as 4 coaches why extend them to 6.

 

[Mikey C]

A new build electric variant of the 222 body style would surely work well in such crossover inter city/commuter routes?

 

[DarloRich]

If the ECML must have IEP then i would cascade the 91's and Mkiv, after a big overhaul, to MML or GEML.

Alternatively why not do one big order for a new direct replacement for the ECML/GEML & MML fleets. By this i mean a locomotive and well built and appointed coaches!

 

[bangor-toad]

Can't see Leicester loosing an intercity style service (and I would campaign against anynreduction in our 4 intercity services per hour provided by inter city stock)

Hi Qwerty133,
This is the type of debate that I am sure is going to happen before any decision is made.

My personal view after using the MML extensively from Nottingham over the last few years is that it *could* all be done with commuter EMU's.
Others can, and I am sure will, disagree!

Now I think that an hour on 3+2 seating is just awful. I'd really hope that this isn't used.

Nottingham and Derby (as well as Leicester) definatly need intercity stock I could just imagine what would be said if I suggested to take intercity stock away from Euston to Bormingham New Street and replace it with more 350s (and under you're argument why not- the journey time/length is around the same) .and as I've said it needs to be intercity stock the question of 2+3 seating can go straight out of the window.
395s are commuter stock and therefore not appropriate.

So Birmingham has Intercity stock. No arguments there. However, Leicester - St Pancras is about 1 hour. Dover - St Pancras is also 1 hour and that uses commuter 395's.


I don't claim to have the answers for the future but I see the pressures for higher density seating and I think that electrification and new rolling stock will be used to shift towards the long distance commuter style seen south of London.

As I said, interesting times ahead!
Cheers,
Jason

 

[LE Greys]

Hi Qwerty133,
This is the type of debate that I am sure is going to happen before any decision is made.

My personal view after using the MML extensively from Nottingham over the last few years is that it *could* all be done with commuter EMU's.
Others can, and I am sure will, disagree!

Now I think that an hour on 3+2 seating is just awful. I'd really hope that this isn't used.

3+2 is hardly used at all today, except on a few outer-suburban units such as the 450/5s.

So Birmingham has Intercity stock. No arguments there. However, Leicester - St Pancras is about 1 hour. Dover - St Pancras is also 1 hour and that uses commuter 395's.


I don't claim to have the answers for the future but I see the pressures for higher density seating and I think that electrification and new rolling stock will be used to shift towards the long distance commuter style seen south of London.

As I said, interesting times ahead!
Cheers,
Jason

Before the days of NSE, nobody would ever have argued that Dover, Weymouth or Hereford were suburban destinations, they were inter-city and given thick lines on the NRT map. Even when trains were worked by EMUs, they were laid out exactly the same as any other MkI-based train, including some that carried buffet cars. A combination of the NSE corporate brand (442s were going to be painted in IC 'Executive' until Chris Green put his foot down), 'Turbo' multiple units and the Chunnel put paid to this perception, with 444s finally putting the tin hat on it. Only London-Norwich survives as an example of a short IC route from London. I was hoping that privatisation would reverse this trend, but it seems to have gone the other way. You're probably right as to what is going to happen.

 

[D6975]

3+2 is hardly used at all today, except on a few outer-suburban units such as the 450/5s.

What???
You are kidding aren't you?
3+2 seating abounds across the network. 142, 150, 172, 334, 350, 377 to name but a few...

 

[bangor-toad]

Which stations do you suggest the platforms can easily be extended to 12 cars as I can't think of many that could. I'm also guessing that you've don't use the MML as 6 cars to Sheffield as its main service would not be enough especially at peak times and you are suggesting cutting the service level to Sheffield to 1tph cutting its service by 6coaches per hour. There are currently 5 paths used- why use just 3 of these 5 paths. Plus corby services are currently air carts as 4 coaches why extend them to 6.

Hi there,
There's a Network Rail document PDF Link that gives the relevant info. Check out page 77 onwards.

Picking some key stations, they all have platforms sufficiently long for splitting long (12 car) services. Again, looking at operations in the old SR, the maximum train lengths now used are 12x 20m trains or 10x 23m trains. So for the train to all be at a platform face you need a touch over 240m.
Here's some info about the main stations:
Leicester: 4 platforms faces around 265m long
Nottingham: (After remodelling) 4 platforms faces from 268m to 343m long
Derby: 4 platforms faces from 306m to 334m long
East Mids Parkway: 2 platforms faces 256m and 258m long.

Loughborough is probably a bit marginal at only 242m though.


My own experience of the MML is that even in the peak a 6 car from Sheffield to Derby or even Leicester would be fine. It could then join with an extra 6 cars already waiting and full of the local passengers. Of course if the stock is available then 10 / 12 cars for the whole route is best in the peak. In the off peak times, why drag empty stock around if they can easily and quickly be dropped off?

This sort of practise allows better utilisation of stock as the core routes have the longest trains and the extremities have shorter trains but, importantly, these are direct services. This is a well versed process - check out what happens on the Southampton / Bournemouth / Weymouth line.

Quite how this could / would all be arranged I don't know. You'd need to know the actual passenger flows to arrange the stock properly. As a couple of examples:
1. Corby has few passengers. So, have a 8 or 12 car service from London, split a Kettering, 4 or 8 cars continue all stops to Leicester and 4 cars go off to Corby.
2. For Sheffield services, 10 or 12 cars come from London to Derby (or perhaps Leicester). The front 6 continue to Sheffield. The rear 6 remain at Derby and then is joined by the next arriving southbound service from Sheffield.

Of course, that type of service provision is utter speculation on my part. The station platforms to do this do exist albeit with maybe some alterations to signalling required.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[ainsworth74]

3+2 seating abounds across the network ... 172

Which 172s have 3+2? I thought the entire class were 2+2 for that matter I thought all the 17x family were 2+2!

 

[43074]

So Birmingham has Intercity stock. No arguments there. However, Leicester - St Pancras is about 1 hour. Dover - St Pancras is also 1 hour and that uses commuter 395's.

What is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to justify using commuter trains on Leicester to London services or what?

Of the trains that make up the four trains an hour from Leicester to London, 2 start in Sheffield and the other 2 start in Nottingham - hardly destinations suitable for commuter stock to work the Express service to London from. Try proposing to someone in Sheffield that commuter trains should work their main service to London, which has a journey time of 2 hours.

If any ''commuter'' style stock is ordered for the route, it should be to supplement an InterCity service, and not replace it (except for Corby where I think the service is more of a commuter style service anyway).

 

[Yew]

Once HS2 arrives we can expect it to demolish the intercity traffic north of Derby on the MML, so we would be paying for TASS effectively as a stopgap.
You would be looking at something like 70 minutes to Meadowhall on HS2 and rather less than an hour to Nottingham's parkway station.

The MML can't hope to compete with that.

ANd how long to central nottingham? Toton is a fair way away, and add in a connection to it, suddenly you are looking at 90mins, Currently a Semi Fast HST can do it in 88.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

395s are commuter stock and therefore not appropriate.

I'm not so sure, I think a Derivative of a 395 could be made suitable, a drastically different interior would obviously be required, but I think with a correct interior, a 395 could be a decent intercity train.

Dont forget there would be expensive gauging for the IEP, whereas 23m stock would probably just be doing the paperwork.

 

[The Ham]

Dont forget there would be expensive gauging for the IEP, whereas 23m stock would probably just be doing the paperwork.

A lot of the cost of the works to allow IEP would depend on whether signalling needs replacing and/or electrification needs to happen or be upgraded.

The other IEP enabling works which have happened is when upgrades to the gauge of the line happens to allow larger containers on freight trains.

All of the above can be done so that the cost to clear a route for IEP's is fairly low (i.e. new signals/gantries/other line side equipment and structures are located far enough away from the track that it means that they don't have to be moved to allow IEP's to use the line).

The cost to allow IEP's to run has to be weighed up against the cost of lengthening platforms to allow longer 23m stock trains to run as there is less wasted space (i.e. 9 pairs of doors and coach joints compared with 10 on a similar length train) which means that there is more space for seats.

 

[tbtc]

A lot of the cost of the works to allow IEP would depend on whether signalling needs replacing and/or electrification needs to happen or be upgraded.

The other IEP enabling works which have happened is when upgrades to the gauge of the line happens to allow larger containers on freight trains

Given that parts of the MML are supposedly going to be part of the "electric spine" (north of Bedford), it sounds like this work will need to be done (regardless of IEP).

 

[bangor-toad]

What is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to justify using commuter trains on Leicester to London services or what?

Yup.
Whilst I'd personally prefer a nice Inter City style service, I just don't think this is going to be sustainable for the future. Cost reduction and efficiency are the game. These will be the determining factors, not what would be "nice".

Leicester really isn't that far away from London - fast services are about 68 minutes and even the stopping services are about 90 minutes. This is quite normal for commuting for many. For the future look at places like Dover. They are now outer London commuter areas and the 395's are high density stock that serve those towns well.

Whilst it would be nice to have electric loco's hauling well laid out, spacious, intercity stock, I just can't see this stacking up economically against cheaper Desiros, Electrostars or even the commuter IEP. Many will complain and be annoyed but just look at what's happened the Portsmouth direct line to see how the cost and efficiency arguments win out...

Maybe that's a bleak view of the future but I stand by my logic of how I arrive at this conclusion.
Debate away!

Cheers,
Jason

 

[LE Greys]

What???
You are kidding aren't you?
3+2 seating abounds across the network. 142, 150, 172, 334, 350, 377 to name but a few...

What I meant to say was on post-privatisation stock. AIUI, most inner-suburban units (the biggest users of 3+2 in the past, look at the PEP units) are going for standing room rather than additional seats, but then my experience is coloured by mostly using LO stock as a basis for this. Mind you, like Ainsworth, I thought that LM's 172s were 2+2 as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yup.
Whilst I'd personally prefer a nice Inter City style service, I just don't think this is going to be sustainable for the future. Cost reduction and efficiency are the game. These will be the determining factors, not what would be "nice".

Leicester really isn't that far away from London - fast services are about 68 minutes and even the stopping services are about 90 minutes. This is quite normal for commuting for many. For the future look at places like Dover. They are now outer London commuter areas and the 395's are high density stock that serve those towns well.

Whilst it would be nice to have electric loco's hauling well laid out, spacious, intercity stock, I just can't see this stacking up economically against cheaper Desiros, Electrostars or even the commuter IEP. Many will complain and be annoyed but just look at what's happened the Portsmouth direct line to see how the cost and efficiency arguments win out...

Maybe that's a bleak view of the future but I stand by my logic of how I arrive at this conclusion.
Debate away!

Cheers,
Jason

Sadly, I have to agree with you.

 

[edwin_m]

ANd how long to central nottingham? Toton is a fair way away, and add in a connection to it, suddenly you are looking at 90mins, Currently a Semi Fast HST can do it in 88.

While I think you have a point on the HS2 times, the current fast times are around 105min (mostly HSTs) and the semi-fasts nearly 2hr (222s). These will improve in December when the timetable is adjusted to take account of the line speed upgrades mentioned above (and hopefully remove some padding too). However the fasts will still exceed 90min which local groups are campaigning for.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Once HS2 arrives we can expect it to demolish the intercity traffic north of Derby on the MML, so we would be paying for TASS effectively as a stopgap.

Oh yes, that old Chestnut! Given what we have all recently learnt about the HS2 funding shortfall it's inevitable that HS2 will charge a premium price, just like the SNCF and DB. Not only that but given the central locations of Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield intercity traffic on the MML still has a future. And yes TASS is very much value for money given all the sharp curves between the East Midlands and London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then there will be need to be a debate or decision, is the MML an intercity route or a commuter route?

For the long distance commuter stock the Desiro or Electostar families would be fine. Quick acceleration is good and with 2+2 seating are quite comfortable. But they're limited to 100/100mph. So for the fast, or longer, services perhaps a derivative of the 395 would do?

Fair play to you for generating debate by posting this! MML / DfT made their minds up that the MML was an intercity route when they introduced the Merridians to replace the woefully indequate class 170's. And since then there is no evidence to suggest that the nature of the route has changed.

 

[plastictaffy]

395s are commuter stock and therefore not appropriate.

Personally, from what I've seen of the rail network, (both as a paying punter and now an employee) I don't think people really care what sort of train it is, or whether it has 2+3 seating or 2+2 seating. They want to get on, hopefully get a seat, and get off where they want to go. They don't want to pay the earth, and they don't want it to take all day. So does it really matter whether they have class 395's, Pendolino's, HST's, Meridians, or even Stephenson's Rocket?? As long as it gets them there, they don't give a monkey's, as far as I can see.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yup. Whilst I'd personally prefer a nice Inter City style service, I just don't think this is going to be sustainable for the future. Cost reduction and efficiency are the game. These will be the determining factors, not what would be "nice".

Leicester really isn't that far away from London - fast services are about 68 minutes and even the stopping services are about 90 minutes. This is quite normal for commuting for many. For the future look at places like Dover. They are now outer London commuter areas and the 395's are high density stock that serve those towns well.

In all fairness the Kent Coast has been viewed as a commuter service for the last 50 years. The only difference that the rolling stock has improved. Don't forget that the SE is far more densely populated then anywhere else in the UK and over the years Londoners have moved further and further out. In the 1960's Petts Wood was viewed as being in the sticks! At no point has the Kent Coast been viewed as being an intercity route.

Whilst it would be nice to have electric loco's hauling well laid out, spacious, intercity stock, I just can't see this stacking up economically against cheaper Desiros, Electrostars or even the commuter IEP. Many will complain and be annoyed but just look at what's happened the Portsmouth direct line to see how the cost and efficiency arguments win out...

Again, the Portsmouth direct line has never been viewed as an intercity route. As things stand at the moment the MML has high standard intercity stock on all of its services. Start offering suburban trains and customers will simply join the M1 in their BMW's, Jag's, Mercs and head to Brent Cross and the Tube. Ideally we'll have Pendolinos, if not then IEP's which I'm guessing will be very similar to the Merridians.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, from what I've seen of the rail network, (both as a paying punter and now an employee) I don't think people really care what sort of train it is, or whether it has 2+3 seating or 2+2 seating. They want to get on, hopefully get a seat, and get off where they want to go. They don't want to pay the earth, and they don't want it to take all day. So does it really matter whether they have class 395's, Pendolino's, HST's, Meridians, or even Stephenson's Rocket?? As long as it gets them there, they don't give a monkey's, as far as I can see.

To a certain degree I would agree with this however they do notice the difference in terms of seating arrangements i.e. 2+3 does not feature on the MML at the moment! The other point worth mentioning is that on trains with central doors you get a draught. Now this maybe seen as rather insignificant but at the moment trains with central doors don't operate on MML services from the East Midlands. Customers are not stupid!

And I think it's fair to say that Stephenson's Rocket would take all day!

 

[HSTEd]

MML seemed to do alright when it has centre-door "suburban" stock on its services (in this case 170s).

 

[RichmondCommu]

MML seemed to do alright when it has centre-door "suburban" stock on its services (in this case 170s).

Really? In which case why were they replaced by the much more suitable Meridians? I'm not sure regular MML users would agree that they 'seemed to do alright'.

 

[HSTEd]

Really? In which case why were they replaced by the much more suitable Meridians? I'm not sure regular MML users would agree that they 'seemed to do alright'.

Because while they were suitable, Meridians could have been considered "more suitable".

Additionally I was a semi-regular user of the Turbostars Hull Trains had when its operations first started.
They seemed fairly similar in terms of making a journey bearable to the Mark 3s we put up with now.

 

[edwin_m]

I think interior layout and facilities are absolutely critical for business users.

If someone is able to use a laptop/tablet then time on the train becomes productive time, whereas driving is always "dead time". If they can count on finding enough space, a power socket and probably also WiFi then these people will potentially use the train even if the fare is somewhat more than the cost of driving.

The same applies to some degree to long distance commuters.

 

[jopsuk]

Leicester really isn't that far away from London - fast services are about 68 minutes and even the stopping services are about 90 minutes. This is quite normal for commuting for many. For the future look at places like Dover. They are now outer London commuter areas and the 395's are high density stock that serve those towns well.

There's London commuters use 365s from Downham Market and Kings Lynn. Not sue if there's any through commuters on the 379-operated GA services from kings Lynn- though at that length of commute, power sockets and wifi will be a true draw.

 

[ainsworth74]

Really? In which case why were they replaced by the much more suitable Meridians? I'm not sure regular MML users would agree that they 'seemed to do alright'.

Well it's worth remembering that when 170s first showed up they were intended to be used on all stops services between St Pancras and the main MML destinations whilst HSTs would run limited stop services. The idea being that if you wanted to travel from Chesterfield to St Pancras you'd board a 170 at Chesterfield and then change at Derby onto an HST that might only call at Leicester on it's way to St Pancras.

It was quite European in it's thinking, but of course in this country we have the cult of 'everywhere must have a regular direct service to London' so it was never all that popular, coupled with issues over capacity with the small 170s and MML ended up going for 222s as a replacement.

 

[asylumxl]

Really? In which case why were they replaced by the much more suitable Meridians? I'm not sure regular MML users would agree that they 'seemed to do alright'.

Because there the MML suffers from a stigma that is just a secondary route.

Network Rail seems to have realised this is not the case (hence the line speed increment work), but a lot of enthusiasts haven't yet.

And to those talking about Kings Lynn on a 365, I thought that the government was intending to operate IEPs to there instead?

 

[jopsuk]

If/when IEPs start operating to Kings Lynn, they'll have the high-density commuter interior, with no catering. They'll have to, else a 2x5 car will have far less seats (south of Cambridge) than the current 3x4 car 365 formations that have people standing on them in the peaks. There will still be 379s operating to liverpool Street, and IEPs are unlikely to shave much time off the Kings Cross journey, especially during the congested peak when the acceleration, not top speed, of the 365s is important.

 

[asylumxl]

If/when IEPs start operating to Kings Lynn, they'll have the high-density commuter interior, with no catering. They'll have to, else a 2x5 car will have far less seats (south of Cambridge) than the current 3x4 car 365 formations that have people standing on them in the peaks. There will still be 379s operating to liverpool Street, and IEPs are unlikely to shave much time off the Kings Cross journey, especially during the congested peak when the acceleration, not top speed, of the 365s is important.

FGW HSTs have high density seating, but they're still intercity trains. The IEPs will still be an intercity train.

So why should the ECML deserve such trains but the MML only deserve commuter trains?