East Midlands franchise prospectus

[thenorthern]

EMT are doing a bloody good job of making a faux-silk purse out of a sows ear - but it's obvious the stock is holding them back. Aside from the Meridians (which are now looking very tired inside too) the fleet is now 30 years old and will be into it's fifth decade by the time the next franchise ends. Surely the next franchise has to be something better than trying in vain to get the rolling stock to be reliable and to modern standards?

At a base level surely it's got to be something along the lines of:-

- 397/801 (125mph EMU) for London to Corby
- 802 (or similar 125mph D/EMU) for London to Nottingham/Sheffield and Liverpool to Norwich (and any new regional express routes)
- 195/755(DMU equiv) for Crewe to Derby/Nottingham* and other busier routes
- 158 after a good refurb for everything else (if not 195s)

If not a full on GA style replacement with 802 and 755s?

* Heck, that route should be Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport to Crewe to Derby to Nottingham....

Crewe to Derby used to be Manchester Airport to Nottingham with most trains then extended to Skegness, Lincoln Central, Grimsby Town or Cleethorpes. I think it was cut because of problems with punctuality.

Liverpool to Norwich is an interesting route as its electrified from Liverpool Lime Street to Liverpool South Parkway, then to Hunts Cross but with 3rd rail, after that its electrified from Trafford Park to Hazel Grove, Grantham to Peterborough and then finally Ely to Norwich.

 

[edwin_m]

The 15x fleet has been improved yes and I would agree that the 158s are now better inside than many trains that are newer than the 158s.

But lets not forget in the days of Central Trains many services such as the Robin Hood Line, Crewe to Derby, Liverpool to Norwich and Lincoln to Leicester were operated by Class 170s which at the time were brand new. Since then Crewe to Derby has become 153s, Robin Hood Line and Lincoln to Leicester has become 156s and Liverpool to Norwich has become 158s. That is the DfTs fault however not EMT.

However you would all too often see a 150 on Birmingham-Nottingham, which ought to be a premium service attracting business passengers. Although Central did some good things such as ordering the 170s beyond their franchise commitment, they spoilt it with lack of attention to detail such as the "out of a hat" unit allocation policy.

 

[tbtc]

They have 17 x 153s currently and there's some doubling up already so I would have thought 14 x 2 car Sprinters would be at least close to being adequate replacement.

Does that include the 153 for the Barton on Humber branch? (genuine question)

Whilst 28 coaches (i.e. 14x156) is obviously more than 17 (17x153), there are some where two coaches would be overkill (Barton!).

Looking at the franchise from when East Midlands Trains won it in 2007 to now there hasn't really been much improvement compared to other franchises that have run for so long.

The main benefit has been the half hourly Sheffield services as previously they were hourly. Also the hourly Matlock to Newark Castle service, reopening of Corby station and introduction of some later services.

At the same time however there hasn't been any new trains ordered for the franchise and all the rolling stock remains the same with a couple of trains cascaded from other operators. All the trains apart from the Meridians are at least 25 years old with some now more than 40 years old.

Also services such as the Burton and Barnsley services have been cut, the Lincoln to Birmingham was cut to Lincoln to Leicester and the 170s were replaced by 156s, the Crewe to Derby 170s have become 153s and the Norwich to Liverpool 170s have become 158s.

Most of it is down to the DfT but it does seem like the 2007-2019 East Midlands Franchise has been a rather boring uneventful franchise where little has been done to improve services.

Pretty much everything you complain about is due to the DfT, yes.

EMT have:

• Secured additional 222s (from HT)
• Secured additional 156s (from Northern), which permitted many of the Liverpool - Nottingham services to be doubled to four coaches, rather than the two coach 158s that were all that they had initially
• Increased the Matlock service to hourly and extended it to Nottingham (from the awkward timetable which Central Trains ran from Matlock to Derby)
• Doubled the frequency from Nottingham to Newark
• Increased the number of London services (with a fifth path per hour due to the Corby services)
• Doubled the Sheffield - London service and gradually sped the "second" service up too
• HSTs to Lincoln Market (and general beefing up of services for such occasions)
• The first through services from Lincoln to London
• 222s to Liverpool for Grand National days
• HSTs to Skegness

Okay, it's not as "exciting" as Central Trains (with the "random unit generator", the eclectic mixture of through services, the complicated timetables) but it's been a fairly stable simple progressive franchise - I'd rather have "a rather boring uneventful franchise" like EMT than that mess of Central Trains.

It's also worth comparing the "Provincial" EMT services with equivalent Northern/ Wales&Borders/FGW services during the same period - the fact that EMT haven't found the money to replace Sprinters and have an ageing fleet is not unique.

(LM were able to replace most Sprinters but that's because of the way that the Central Trains stock was split up - for whatever reasons they got dozens of 170s from the "divorce" whilst EMT got the 156s and 158s - but the stagnating "Provincial" fleet of Northern/ Wales&Borders/ FGW has been fairly similar to EMT during the timeframe we are talking about)

Absolutely right.

We're told having a "privatised" railway means innovation and private sector investment, yet unless the DfT build infrastructure and service improvements into the franchising and contracting process, they won't happen.

The new franchise consultation is equally un-imaginative:

Nothing about specifying re-opening of Leicester to Burton for passengers;
Nothing about upgrading Derby to Crewe

There has been improvement but, given that the economics of running more services on most of the non-London services mean that you'll need some additional subsidy before you start to increase frequencies in areas like Lincolnshire. That goes for pretty much all "Provincial" services (TPE being a rare exception).

As for the "unimaginative" consultation... if there's no money/ resource to electrify the MML (despite it being a proper commitment for some time) then I think we can forget about finding money/ resource to open new lines like Leicester to Burton - we need to focus on improving what we have with what we have rather than daydreaming about additional lines (since, realistically, we can't handle a long running commitment to electrification, new lines are probably off the agenda).

 

[class26]

Crewe to Derby used to be Manchester Airport to Nottingham with most trains then extended to Skegness, Lincoln Central, Grimsby Town or Cleethorpes. I think it was cut because of problems with punctuality.

Liverpool to Norwich is an interesting route as its electrified from Liverpool Lime Street to Liverpool South Parkway, then to Hunts Cross but with 3rd rail, after that its electrified from Trafford Park to Hazel Grove, Grantham to Peterborough and then finally Ely to Norwich.

Don`t think Ely - Norwich is electrified unless I missed this announcement !!!

 

[thenorthern]

Don`t think Ely - Norwich is electrified unless I missed this announcement !!!

Your right its not I got confused with the Fen Line leaving Ely and the Norwich line.

 

[pemma]

Does that include the 153 for the Barton on Humber branch? (genuine question)

No it will be 18 x 153s if/when Barton Humber transfers. It should have transferred by now but unless I've missed something Northern still operate it and no 153s have transferred from Northern to EMT.

Whilst 28 coaches (i.e. 14x156) is obviously more than 17 (17x153), there are some where two coaches would be overkill (Barton!).

It's really a question of do you give EMT a consistent fleet or do they get something different for 1 branch line? Having 'overkill' on some routes for a consistent fleet is something which happens in lots of places e.g. Lime Street to Warrington Bank Quay services don't need 4 carriages, while there's unelectrified routes which need 4 carriages and only get 2 or 3.

 

[edwin_m]

It's really a question of do you give EMT a consistent fleet or do they get something different for 1 branch line? Having 'overkill' on some routes for a consistent fleet is something which happens in lots of places e.g. Lime Street to Warrington Bank Quay services don't need 4 carriages, while there's unelectrified routes which need 4 carriages and only get 2 or 3.

I'd say Barton is the only route in the future EM franchise where a 153 would be a sensible all-day provision. Using 156 or similar on that route would allow them to interwork with other Lincolnshre services to get them back to depot which would probably be in Nottingham.

 

[Chester1]

There are no confirmed plans to make any 153s DDA compliant by 2020 or turn them back into 155s. Unless they are desperate for sprinters the next franchise holder may send them off lease. I suspect Tocs will obtain a derogation to allow them to be used joined with a compliant sprinter.

 

[thenorthern]

I know a couple of years ago Nottingham city council wanted a faster train to Manchester introduced that avoided Sheffield which could happen.

Also at the last franchise the winner was allowed to look at re-introducing the Project Rio services that ran during the WCML blockade in 2003 which could happen again.

The old project rio services had the annoying stopping pattern of STP - Luton - Wellingbrough - Ketteting - Market Harbrough - Leicester - Stockport - Manchester which I never understood as they skipped Loughbrough and Chesterfield but called at Kettering but there could be a case for Derby to Manchester trains.

 

[tbtc]

No it will be 18 x 153s if/when Barton Humber transfers. It should have transferred by now but unless I've missed something Northern still operate it and no 153s have transferred from Northern to EMT

Cheers for confirming - I couldn't remember when the handover takes place (will be good once it does as it'll hopefully mean the end to single 153s in Sheffield - since the previous day's Barton unit works a peak service from Scunthorpe to Sheffield)

It's really a question of do you give EMT a consistent fleet or do they get something different for 1 branch line? Having 'overkill' on some routes for a consistent fleet is something which happens in lots of places e.g. Lime Street to Warrington Bank Quay services don't need 4 carriages, while there's unelectrified routes which need 4 carriages and only get 2 or 3.

True - two DMU types should be sufficient for the ex-Central services (although EMT can stick a third carriage onto a Matlock service from time to time, using the flexibility of 153s)

I know a couple of years ago Nottingham city council wanted a faster train to Manchester introduced that avoided Sheffield which could happen.

Also at the last franchise the winner was allowed to look at re-introducing the Project Rio services that ran during the WCML blockade in 2003 which could happen again.

The old project rio services had the annoying stopping pattern of STP - Luton - Wellingbrough - Ketteting - Market Harbrough - Leicester - Stockport - Manchester which I never understood as they skipped Loughbrough and Chesterfield but called at Kettering but there could be a case for Derby to Manchester trains.

The RIO service replaced the "second" London - Nottingham train, so the calling pattern (STP - Luton - Wellingbrough - Ketteting - Market Harbrough - Leicester) had to retain the stops for that service - but then they had to balance that with the need for a competitive London - Manchester service, hence omitting Chesterfield. IIRC the average load north of Leicester was only seventy-something passengers.

The problem with railway geography is that you can't efficiently serve the three main East Midlands conurbations (Leicester, Nottingham, Derby) with one Manchester service. A faster Nottingham - Manchester train is little to no use for people in Derby and Leicester. Whilst Nottingham City Council may want a faster Manchester service, there's maybe more case for Derby/ Leicester to get *any* Manchester service.

Plus, with HS2 on the horizon, a London - East Midlands - Manchester service isn't going to be competitive on time, so maybe there's more argument for stopping it at places like Luton Airport/ Luton/ Bedford to give them a Manchester service too (esp given that Manchester doesn't have fantastic links to "parallel" places on the WCML like Milton Keynes/ Northampton/ Rugby/ Nuneaton)?

(I'm all for the Liverpool - Norwich service avoiding Sheffield, as long as Sheffield retains equivalent frequencies to Manchester and Nottingham)

 

[pemma]

The old project rio services had the annoying stopping pattern of STP - Luton - Wellingbrough - Ketteting - Market Harbrough - Leicester - Stockport - Manchester which I never understood as they skipped Loughbrough and Chesterfield but called at Kettering but there could be a case for Derby to Manchester trains.

That was intended as a substitute to Virgin WC services while there were no direct Manchester to London services via the WCML. They presumably tried to do it a way which wouldn't prevent normal MML passengers from boarding trains because they were too full.

 

[kevjs]

The problem with railway geography is that you can't efficiently serve the three main East Midlands conurbations (Leicester, Nottingham, Derby) with one Manchester service.

However change it to two services and you can do easily...

Leicester to Derby to Crewe to Manchester Airport to Piccadilly
OR
(London) to Leicester to Derby to (Sheffield) to Manchester Piccadilly

(Norwich) to Nottingham to (Sheffield) to Manchester Piccadilly.
OR
(Lincoln to Newark) to Nottingham to Crewe to Manchester Airport to Piccadilly

Manchester to the East Midlands could even use a single path with a split at Sheffield or Chesterfield. Not so sure it would be too reliable trying to join at Sheffield heading North mind...

 

[ag51ruk]

However change it to two services and you can do easily...

Leicester to Derby to Crewe to Manchester Airport to Piccadilly
OR
(London) to Leicester to Derby to (Sheffield) to Manchester Piccadilly

(Norwich) to Nottingham to (Sheffield) to Manchester Piccadilly.
OR
(Lincoln to Newark) to Nottingham to Crewe to Manchester Airport to Piccadilly

Manchester to the East Midlands could even use a single path with a split at Sheffield or Chesterfield. Not so sure it would be too reliable trying to join at Sheffield heading North mind...

While a through Derby - Manchester Piccadilly service would be welcome, making it part of a Derby - Crewe - Airport - Piccadilly service isn't going to attract much custom. Stoke - Piccadilly offers 4 fast trains an hour offering same platform change at Stoke in both directions with a much shorter journey time than would be possible via Crewe/Airport.

East Midlands - Manchester Airport via Crewe would be a potentially useful link, but never seemed very successful when run by Central Trains.

 

[thenorthern]

The RIO service replaced the "second" London - Nottingham train, so the calling pattern (STP - Luton - Wellingbrough - Ketteting - Market Harbrough - Leicester) had to retain the stops for that service - but then they had to balance that with the need for a competitive London - Manchester service, hence omitting Chesterfield. IIRC the average load north of Leicester was only seventy-something passengers.

The problem with railway geography is that you can't efficiently serve the three main East Midlands conurbations (Leicester, Nottingham, Derby) with one Manchester service. A faster Nottingham - Manchester train is little to no use for people in Derby and Leicester. Whilst Nottingham City Council may want a faster Manchester service, there's maybe more case for Derby/ Leicester to get *any* Manchester service.

Plus, with HS2 on the horizon, a London - East Midlands - Manchester service isn't going to be competitive on time, so maybe there's more argument for stopping it at places like Luton Airport/ Luton/ Bedford to give them a Manchester service too (esp given that Manchester doesn't have fantastic links to "parallel" places on the WCML like Milton Keynes/ Northampton/ Rugby/ Nuneaton)?

(I'm all for the Liverpool - Norwich service avoiding Sheffield, as long as Sheffield retains equivalent frequencies to Manchester and Nottingham)

Given the size and importance of Sheffield compared to Nottingham I doubt any company would withdraw direct trains from Sheffield to benefit Nottingham. The reversal at Sheffield does add quite a bit of time but Sheffield is too important to miss out as a big city and an interchange. Any new service I think would run East Midlands to Manchester only.

That was intended as a substitute to Virgin WC services while there were no direct Manchester to London services via the WCML. They presumably tried to do it a way which wouldn't prevent normal MML passengers from boarding trains because they were too full.

It was quite empty north of Leicester as the service wasn't well advertised and took rather a long time. I those days though the line wasn't as busy as it is now.

As others have said south of Leicester is was that is was using the path of another train.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[CommuterPigeon]

Quick question but are the proposed freight loops along the Hope Valley and enhancements at Dore (doubling???) still going ahead or have they been kicked in to the long grass by Network Rail??? Sadly I can't see there being room for a new Manchester to Derby/Leicester service, or even extra Sheffield-Manchester services if they're not happening...

The decision was due to be announced in May this year however due to the election it went quiet. Probably won't here anything until the summer break is over.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Quite apart from any benefit of the Hope Valley capacity works still being several years away it is also worth noting that Northern has bid into what little spare capacity remains with an enhanced Hope Valley local service from May 2018. (This is heavily constrained around freight paths and includes many skip stopping and off-pattern variations on the basis of current consultation drafts.)

 

[Class 170101]

I think it would still be viable for a St Pancras to Manchester service post HS2. However I don't see it being used for fast journeys. Instead focussing on the intermediate journeys between Luton / Bedford and stations north to Manchester.

I wouldn't serve Nottingham with this London service. Instead I would look to focus on an additional service from East Anglia to the North West via Nottingham but avoiding Sheffield. Connections to be provided at Chesterfield.

 

[Chester1]

Has there been any indication of whether Birmingham to Nottingham/Stansted will be transferred to the next EM franchise? They are rather odd services to have in the CrossCountry franchise due to the stopping patterns and rolling stock. Any news on other potential splits mentioned in the franchise spec e.g. Liverpool to Norwich?

 

[twpsaesneg]

I regularly travel East Anglia to Manchester... the fastest way is with 2 changes including a half-hour layover at Leeds.

Anything that could make the direct service a little faster would be just great. Though the timetable does have a *lot* of slack in it - I've left Manchester 20 late before and been on time in Cambridgeshire!

Agreed that the reverse at Sheffield would be nice to get rid of, but a fair few passengers jump on and off there in my experience.

 

[class26]

I regularly travel East Anglia to Manchester... the fastest way is with 2 changes including a half-hour layover at Leeds.

Anything that could make the direct service a little faster would be just great. Though the timetable does have a *lot* of slack in it - I've left Manchester 20 late before and been on time in Cambridgeshire!

Agreed that the reverse at Sheffield would be nice to get rid of, but a fair few passengers jump on and off there in my experience.

One way round the Sheffield "problem" is to have a half hour service with one going from Manchester to Nottingham and then onto Norwich omitting Sheffield whereas the service 30 minutes later would call at Sheffield and terminate at Notting perhaps ?

 

[edwin_m]

The fundamental problem with this route is that Manchester-Sheffield only gets two fast trains per hour so is much less than Manchester-Liverpool or Manchester-Leeds. With limited capacity on the Hope Valley it's likely any extra paths would be improving this service rather than bypassing Sheffield.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Has there been any indication of whether Birmingham to Nottingham/Stansted will be transferred to the next EM franchise? They are rather odd services to have in the CrossCountry franchise due to the stopping patterns and rolling stock. Any news on other potential splits mentioned in the franchise spec e.g. Liverpool to Norwich?

Hi Chester1 - if you scroll back you might find my posts earlier in this thread.

Interestingly, the franchise consultation document does raise this as an idea, and invites comments. It also asks for comments on the idea of interworking the routes, so that alternate trains leave Norwich for Birmingham and Liverpool. It also raises (tentatively) the idea once again that Liverpool - Norwich should be split at Nottingham.

I would encourage you to provide feedback on these specific points, because I for one would favour seeing the two routes reunited into one franchise.

 

[Chester1]

Hi Chester1 - if you scroll back you might find my posts earlier in this thread.

Interestingly, the franchise consultation document does raise this as an idea, and invites comments. It also asks for comments on the idea of interworking the routes, so that alternate trains leave Norwich for Birmingham and Liverpool. It also raises (tentatively) the idea once again that Liverpool - Norwich should be split at Nottingham.

I would encourage you to provide feedback on these specific points, because I for one would favour seeing the two routes reunited into one franchise.

I have not responded to the consultation yet. Interworking could potentially work well but I do think East Midlands franchise should not serve Liverpool. I would prefer EMT Hope Valley services to terminate at Manchester Airport with TPE services from Cleethorpes running to Liverpool (potentially via Chat Moss route). EMT would need two fewer 158s and TPE two more 185s (i.e. 20 going off lease instead of 22). EMT would certainly find good uses for two freed 158s and Manchester Airport to Norwich (or perhaps interworked with Stansted) would be a more logical and probably more resiliant service.

 

[IanXC]

I have not responded to the consultation yet. Interworking could potentially work well but I do think East Midlands franchise should not serve Liverpool. I would prefer EMT Hope Valley services to terminate at Manchester Airport with TPE services from Cleethorpes running to Liverpool (potentially via Chat Moss route). EMT would need two fewer 158s and TPE two more 185s (i.e. 20 going off lease instead of 22). EMT would certainly find good uses for two freed 158s and Manchester Airport to Norwich (or perhaps interworked with Stansted) would be a more logical and probably more resiliant service.

I'd even be tempted to suggest just terminating the EMT at Manchester Piccadilly. For me the future of this route looks something like:

1tph EMT Norwich-Nottingham-Chesterfield-(Dore South, Hope Valley)-Manchester Piccadilly
1tph TPE Manchester Airport-Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield-Cleethorpes
1tph TPE Liverpool Lime Street-Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield-(Mystery location perhaps Nottingham or Hull?)
1tph Northern Hope Valley stopper

That would maintain the East Midlands to North West link and improve the journey time (passengers for Liverpool have many connections at Piccadilly, and those for Sheffield at Chesterfield), remove an operator from the Oxford Road corridor, provide a 3rd express Sheffield to Manchester service and have the effect of freeing up EMT stock, and finding new use for TPE 185s.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Hi Chester1 - if you scroll back you might find my posts earlier in this thread.

Interestingly, the franchise consultation document does raise this as an idea, and invites comments. It also asks for comments on the idea of interworking the routes, so that alternate trains leave Norwich for Birmingham and Liverpool. It also raises (tentatively) the idea once again that Liverpool - Norwich should be split at Nottingham.

I would encourage you to provide feedback on these specific points, because I for one would favour seeing the two routes reunited into one franchise.

shudders if it happens

Should East Midlands ever run the Birmingham to Nottinghams, I dread to think what could appear...such as 153s!

 

[Chester1]

I'd even be tempted to suggest just terminating the EMT at Manchester Piccadilly. For me the future of this route looks something like:

1tph EMT Norwich-Nottingham-Chesterfield-(Dore South, Hope Valley)-Manchester Piccadilly
1tph TPE Manchester Airport-Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield-Cleethorpes
1tph TPE Liverpool Lime Street-Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield-(Mystery location perhaps Nottingham or Hull?)
1tph Northern Hope Valley stopper

That would maintain the East Midlands to North West link and improve the journey time (passengers for Liverpool have many connections at Piccadilly, and those for Sheffield at Chesterfield), remove an operator from the Oxford Road corridor, provide a 3rd express Sheffield to Manchester service and have the effect of freeing up EMT stock, and finding new use for TPE 185s.

That would work well but would require the passing loops to be built first. It is not possible to add a reliable 3rd express service path through the Hope Valley until express trains are able to overtake the stopping service and freight. I think a Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Doncaster-Hull service has been proposed using some of the 185s that will go off lease which would probably replace the planned Sheffield-Doncaster-Hull Northern Connect service. The 195s will be stretched very thin and the cascades are not taking place as planned, 3-4 class 195s freed up for other services would be helpful. There is still no ETA for Hope Valley passing loops so the EM franchise consultation can only consider options that involve 2 Hope Valley express services and that leave Sheffield with direct hourly services to both Manchester Airport and Liverpool. Removing either would be out of the question in the context of the Northern Powerhouse context. Sheffield and Liverpool need a direct link and Manchester Airport is Sheffields main airport because of the few flights at Doncaster-Sheffield and because East Midlands Airport is for short haul flights.

 

[pemma]

I think a Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Doncaster-Hull service has been proposed using some of the 185s that will go off lease which would probably replace the planned Sheffield-Doncaster-Hull Northern Connect service.

No that was one of the options in the Northern/TPE consultation

Option A:
South TPE remains the same
Barton Humber goes to EMT

Option B:
South TPE diverted to Hull
Barton Humber stays with Northern
Doncaster-Cleethorpes moves to Northern

Option B was rejected in favour of option A. Arriva including Sheffield-Hull as a Connect route reduces the chance of that idea being resurrected.

 

[pemma]

shudders if it happens

Should East Midlands ever run the Birmingham to Nottinghams, I dread to think what could appear...such as 153s!

On odd occasions 170s have appeared on Manchester to Birmingham services, so a 153 in lieu of a 170 is no worse! Although, I imagine the 153s will be paying a visit to the scrap metal dealer very soon given the lack of proposals to make PRM mods to them.

 

[edwin_m]

EMT generally keeps 158s on the Liverpool-Norwich run with the exception of the strengthening set west of Nottingham which is sometimes a 156. I think they could keep a separate sub-fleet on Birmingham-Leicester/Stansted/Nottingham if they needed too - not at all like Central Trains!