If you took over East Midlands Trains, what would you do?

[anti-pacer]

It would be good if fares on HS2 could be comparable to normal train services. Taking the MML for example, if Sheffield/Chesterfield passengers travelling to London could mostly be moved onto HS2, and not put off because of premium prices, it then frees up MML services for non-London journeys for people on the northern end of the route. It then enables towns south of Leicester to be better connected to London without compromising journey times for passengers further north.

As it is at the moment, the MML, as is probably the case with most 'InterCity' routes, has to manage a combination of long-distance London passengers who generally want fast services without calling at all shacks, intermediate passengers who want easy links between places on the route (e.g. Loughborough to Wellingborough), and commuters further south who want to travel on the faster, often one-stop train to London.

The answer to me comes in the form of HS2, but will their trains be running around for parts of the day almost empty because the majority of non-business passengers won't pay the premium? It needs pricing properly.

 

[WideRanger]

Really? Your idea is to condense 3 trains worth of passengers on to 2 already crowded trains to give the people of Nottingham a slightly faster service.



Really? You cant work out why Derby might be a convenient interchange point? Are you sure about that? have you thought that there are more people using those trains than only passengers to Derby or Nottingham. The issue isnt the local stopper. The issue is long distance passengers.

XC arent going to miss Derby out. It offers them more revenue and better connections to the wider network than serving Nottingham with a faster train. How, for instance do you pose to accommodate any passengers form SW of Birmingham wishing to go to Derby or points north?



Got you - your argument is that the suggested idea suits your needs and everyone else can go hang.

I would absolutely agree the Nottingham ( and Leicester ) services from Brum need longer trains. The current ones are far too small. Personally I would suggest that longer trains mean more chance of seat making the journey time less of an issue

I don't live in the area any more so have no skin in the game. My thinking is this: if the Cardiff to Nottingham Trains were diverted via Castle Donnington, then the only things that would be impacted negatively would be:

• Direct connections to Derby and Long Eaton for stations between Birmingham and Cardiff
  
• Number of Trains between Nottingham and Derby

Connections on to the wider XC network North of Derby could just as easily be made at Birmingham New Street. Passengers between Derby and Birmingham can use other XC services (which are quite frequent). You would probably want to add a Derby - Burton local train to make sure that the XC between this pair doesn't become overwhelmed (and possibly to open up the opportunity to introduce more stops). If 2tph (Crewe and Matlock) are not enough between Derby and Nottingham, then add another train shuttling between the two (perhaps doing the all stops services including Attenborough and Spondon, allowing the longer distance trains to serve Long Eaton and Beeston only), or even extend the additional Derby to Burton Train at the Derby end too.

This would require more rolling stock, but so would extending the trains. The advantage would be that those additional units would not need to be specced to the standard required of a unit going all the way to Cardiff. It would also produce significant time savings on the Nottingham to Birmingham route (as long as the Castle Donnington route could be run at a reasonable speed).

The only real loser I can see would be Long Eaton, which would lose a direct connection to Birmingham and points south. I suspect (it is very small compared to the traffic going to Nottingham, Derby, Leicester and London). In the longer term, it won't be an issue, once the service on HS2 from Toton (about the same distance from Long Eaton town centre as the current 'Long Eaton' station) gets going. But in the meantime, I wonder whether the impact of that is greater than the impact of a significant diversion to serve Long Eaton and Derby for the much larger population centres of Nottingham, Burton and Birmingham.

 

[twpsaesneg]

Lateral thinking (quite literally). How much longer would that routing take, and how would it compare to the time penalty from changing ends at Sheffield?

Only 4 minutes timetabled for changing ends at Sheffield. Plus I think capacity East of Sheffield is tight as it is so there's a good chance of picking up delay there sadly.

 

[Goldie]

More capacity on Norwich - Liverpool services. Lots more capacity. With a really good bar onboard. And a special privilege card, entitling anyone who has ever had to spend any part of that journey crammed into the vestibule of a 158, admiring some stranger's nasal hair from a distance of two to three centimetres, to free cocktails for life.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Only 4 minutes timetabled for changing ends at Sheffield. Plus I think capacity East of Sheffield is tight as it is so there's a good chance of picking up delay there sadly.

Lateral thinking (quite literally). How much longer would that routing take, and how would it compare to the time penalty from changing ends at Sheffield?

It would take a minimum of 16 minutes longer going that way, but more if it conflicted with the Lincoln between Woodhouse - Woodburn section.
But why would you want extend the journey times of our trains ?. Why not send Cross Country that way and make them live up to there name !.
Dore to Sheff has 8 trains per hour so not exactly at capacity yet.

 

[70014IronDuke]

More capacity on Norwich - Liverpool services. Lots more capacity. With a really good bar onboard. And a special privilege card, entitling anyone who has ever had to spend any part of that journey crammed into the vestibule of a 158, admiring some stranger's nasal hair from a distance of two to three centimetres, to free cocktails for life.

Could we have a table of privileges awarded for other types of strangers' hairs observered close up?

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'd extend the London St.Pancras to Sheffield into Manchester Picc like they did in the early 2000s and send the Liverpool to Norwich into the hands of XC

Except "they" didn't do this. The Man Picc Rios were specifically not routed via Sheffield.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'm not quite clear if four tracking is in current plans for Leicester - Syston or not, but if it isn't, and I was CEO of EMT, I'd definitely be pushing for it. On top of that, I'd be pushing for three trains per hour Brum - Leicester, with some skip stopping, but so that every station, including Water Orton and South Wigston, had at least one train per hour. (passenger figures for Water Orton have been growing quite nicely considering its pretty miserable service.) One of these would continue to Peterborough all stations, including Syston (Allowing interchange from Ivanhoe line) while the current Stansted service could be speeded up by dropping intermediate stops (at least outside the peaks) between Leicester and Peterborough.
Longer term, I'd be pushing for a new station at Leicester Thurmaston on the slow linesall Ivanhoe and Peterborough/Stansted services would stop. This could also have a south facing bay, where all the Brum-Leicester terminators would terminate. If EMT were to introduce Leicester-St Pancras trains again, these too might terminate here, easing capacity at Leicester London Rd (although space might prohibit this possibility).

 

[Confused147]

The one problem with that is that "Project Rio" (as was) replaced the Nottingham semi-fast services between St Pancras and Leicester (still calling at Luton, Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough), then ran via the Erewash Valley line, rejoining the MML at Clay Cross, and then taking Dore South Curve to join the Hope Valley Line.

As such, services bypassed both Derby and Sheffield, with running times of 1.5 hours from St Pancras to Leicester, a further 1.5 hours on to Stockport, and about 15 minutes from Stockport to Piccadilly, for an end to end time of around 3 hours 15 minutes. Meanwhile, a fast train to Sheffield and TPE thence to Manchester takes 3 hours 5 minutes.

A typical Manchester to Euston via Birmingham is 3 hours 15 mins, there is one that leaves at 06:27 daily from MP. Preston also has hourly services into London via Birmingham taking a while longer than the fastest route (about 3 hours 15 mins). London to Manchester via Sheffield would be useful as it would provide additional Manchester to Sheffield services and also ticket machines in Manchester always offer a 'via Chesterfield' ticket so why not have a direct train?

 

[B&I]

It would take a minimum of 16 minutes longer going that way, but more if it conflicted with the Lincoln between Woodhouse - Woodburn section.
But why would you want extend the journey times of our trains ?. Why not send Cross Country that way and make them live up to there name !.

Dore to Sheff has 8 trains per hour so not exactly at capacity yet.

Back to the drawing board. My personal fave: replace the cobbled-together Liverpool-Norwich extravaganza with more direct trains covering the same links - Liverpool-Norwich via Crewe and Nottingham, Liverpool-Hull via Sheffield, Manchester-St Pancras via Nottingham (but avoiding Sheffield), Norwich-Bradford via Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds.

 

[B&I]

the phrase "post HS2" seem to open up all kinds of service suggestions

I've started using it as a pre-emptive strike against the 3,000 people who tell me there's no capacity for any suggestion I make about improving existing services. But more seriously, HS2, if done properly, could be a golden opportunity to improve overall service levels and move a lot more people onto the railways.

 

[Timrud]

Why would you want to extend the St Pancras service from Sheffield to Manchester?

Surely for people in Manchester it's far quicker to use their existing London connection?

 

[anti-pacer]

Back to the drawing board. My personal fave: replace the cobbled-together Liverpool-Norwich extravaganza with more direct trains covering the same links - Liverpool-Norwich via Crewe and Nottingham, Liverpool-Hull via Sheffield, Manchester-St Pancras via Nottingham (but avoiding Sheffield), Norwich-Bradford via Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds.

Anybody wanting to travel from Bradford and Leeds to Ely and points towards Norwich can easily do so via Peterborough, and faster.

Whilst I support faster links between Manchester and Nottingham, wouldn't this be a waste of a path when that could be used for another service between Manchester and Sheffield? I do, however, welcome a better link between Crewe and Nottingham, providing connections from the WCML and North Wales towards the East Midlands.

 

[hooverboy]

It would be good if fares on HS2 could be comparable to normal train services. Taking the MML for example, if Sheffield/Chesterfield passengers travelling to London could mostly be moved onto HS2, and not put off because of premium prices, it then frees up MML services for non-London journeys for people on the northern end of the route. It then enables towns south of Leicester to be better connected to London without compromising journey times for passengers further north.

As it is at the moment, the MML, as is probably the case with most 'InterCity' routes, has to manage a combination of long-distance London passengers who generally want fast services without calling at all shacks, intermediate passengers who want easy links between places on the route (e.g. Loughborough to Wellingborough), and commuters further south who want to travel on the faster, often one-stop train to London.

The answer to me comes in the form of HS2, but will their trains be running around for parts of the day almost empty because the majority of non-business passengers won't pay the premium? It needs pricing properly.

solution is simple,but not with present franchise system
1)UK rail service needs 9 regional franchises and 2 national franchises
2)regional franchise covers stoppers/metropolitan services
2)national franchise consists of 1 semi-fast, and 1 intercity express.
4)tenure is 10-15 years,not 7.Allows for better planning and investment in rolling stock.increase in size will allow for better bargaining power from rosco lease or train manufacture.
6)tiered lease system,so older stuff is discounted every 10 years,with a expected service of 30years.
7)variable ticket/rover depending on time and/or type of train....a regional bavaria day pass for instance is only €25 but excludes peak /ICE use...way more sensible than the plethora of useless one-line rovers we presently have.

basically the german system of s-bahn, regional express and ICE.

ps if someone wants to set up easytrain with the beat up stuff of 30 years old for £1 a pop that's an opportunity!

 

[Kettledrum]

In terms of Mansfield to London, the number of tickets per train are relatively few and regularly zero. All of the platforms are 3 cars except Mansfield Town, and the only place you'd be able to reverse a train longer than 3 cars would be Shirebrook or Worksop, which is a massive waste of resources on what is a steady route in the middle of the day. Running through from Matlock, Lincoln, Burton and Barnsley are where I'd hedge my bets, but generally only on the basis of providing extra peak capacity into Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield.

I'm not surprised, Mansfield to London currently sells very few direct tickets. The journey is currently between 2 and 3/4 hours and 3 hours, so this will deter most people. The town does however have a population of 100,000 people, in a reasonably tight urban area, so could be a potentially big market. It's a chicken and egg situation though. Do you wait until passengers come before introducing new services or do you design a service and then agressively market it to potential customers.

Mansfield is a relatively deprived area, so anything to help the residents find employment by helping them travel to places where there are jobs will have wider economic benefits.

Lincoln and Barnsley are more tricky as residents can access the East Coast Main Line more easily.

 

[B&I]

Anybody wanting to travel from Bradford and Leeds to Ely and points towards Norwich can easily do so via Peterborough, and faster.

Whilst I support faster links between Manchester and Nottingham, wouldn't this be a waste of a path when that could be used for another service between Manchester and Sheffield? I do, however, welcome a better link between Crewe and Nottingham, providing connections from the WCML and North Wales towards the East Midlands.

The main thought I had with the Bradford service was retaining a Sheffield-East Anglia link. If you're running it as far as Sheffield, you might as well run it on to Leeds, and if you're running it to Leeds, you might as well run on to Bradford.

The Manchester service could reverse at Sheffield if you wanted an extra service there.

 

[IanXC]

The main thought I had with the Bradford service was retaining a Sheffield-East Anglia link. If you're running it as far as Sheffield, you might as well run it on to Leeds, and if you're running it to Leeds, you might as well run on to Bradford.

Other than adding additional moves that reverse and cross the throat at Leeds...

 

[Camden]

I think there is an opportunity for some joined up thinking with this. As electrics will stop at Corby, it places a question mark over rail connections north of there once the new rolling stock comes into play. We also know that the Liverpool authorities are keen to get an additional midlands service to Leicester. This will need to be Diesel.

One train an hour from Liverpool calling at Crewe, Stoke, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Corby and terminating at Kettering would provide for a lot of connectivity at each end of the route. Introducing direct Leicester connectivity from Corby, doubling it from Kettering, and plugging the route into the profitable flows between the large cities of Nottingham etc and the major city at the end of the line including some places currently lacking a direct Liverpool connection, as well as taking some of the strain away from the route via Manchester.

On top of this, I would make sure East Midlands trains offered advance fares not only along this route but also across the network. You can actually get to Liverpool all the way from Leicester via East Midlands trains at the moment, but you cannot get an advance fare.

 

[Qwerty133]

It would be good if fares on HS2 could be comparable to normal train services. Taking the MML for example, if Sheffield/Chesterfield passengers travelling to London could mostly be moved onto HS2, and not put off because of premium prices, it then frees up MML services for non-London journeys for people on the northern end of the route. It then enables towns south of Leicester to be better connected to London without compromising journey times for passengers further north.

As it is at the moment, the MML, as is probably the case with most 'InterCity' routes, has to manage a combination of long-distance London passengers who generally want fast services without calling at all shacks, intermediate passengers who want easy links between places on the route (e.g. Loughborough to Wellingborough), and commuters further south who want to travel on the faster, often one-stop train to London.

The answer to me comes in the form of HS2, but will their trains be running around for parts of the day almost empty because the majority of non-business passengers won't pay the premium? It needs pricing properly.

South of Leicester HS2 will have to have little to no impact on midland mainline services as Leicester will have no reasonable connectivity to HS2 and needs to maintain its current level of service and journey times to London, and even north of Leicester its difficult to see which if any services could be slowed through extra stops or scrapped due to the passenger levels travelling between Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham and Leicester.

 

[Qwerty133]

I think there is an opportunity for some joined up thinking with this. As electrics will stop at Corby, it places a question mark over rail connections north of there once the new rolling stock comes into play. We also know that the Liverpool authorities are keen to get an additional midlands service to Leicester. This will need to be Diesel.

One train an hour from Liverpool calling at Crewe, Stoke, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Corby and terminating at Kettering would provide for a lot of connectivity at each end of the route. Introducing direct Leicester connectivity from Corby, doubling it from Kettering, and plugging the route into the profitable flows between the large cities of Nottingham etc and the major city at the end of the line including some places currently lacking a direct Liverpool connection, as well as taking some of the strain away from the route via Manchester.

On top of this, I would make sure East Midlands trains offered advance fares not only along this route but also across the network. You can actually get to Liverpool all the way from Leicester via East Midlands trains at the moment, but you cannot get an advance fare.

There's no demand for services north of Corby. At present the 16:35 southbound from Derby gets the majority of its very few passengers from £1 megatrain tickets. Additionally running any service from the north to Corby via Leicester is illogical and would require a reversal at Leicester.

 

[Camden]

There's no demand for services north of Corby. At present the 16:35 southbound from Derby gets the majority of its very few passengers from £1 megatrain tickets. Additionally running any service from the north to Corby via Leicester is illogical and would require a reversal at Leicester.

I don't think that can be said. There are very few trains that currently run, on a line which had been closed for yonks, which is useless for commuting. Those three things together mean that there is nothing to be gleaned about the potential from current services.

Hourly Corby and Oakham to Leicester could potentially be very useful to develop commuter flows into Leicester, opening up more job opportunities and developing the regional economy. Effectively doubling the service between Kettering and Corby/Leicester would also do much to increase the viability of commuting by rail from there too. Oakham also is home to a decent school, which some families in Corby might be interested in sending their children to. Having both London and Leicester-bound connectivity would increase the viability/attractiveness of Corby as a place to live, which is part of a national objective of encouraging growth outside of London.

After a few years of operation, I would expect Corby station in particular to be well used for both directions. In future years, perhaps it might even help build the case for rebuilding/electrifying northwards to Peterborough.

In the first few years yes it would need to bed in. People don't start using things like this overnight, it takes time to build up the market. That is why I say joined-up thinking, in making it effectively an "add-on" to a Liverpool to Leicester service. This is something which is officially wanted, but having a unit idling at Leicester station is likely to be a stumbling block. It also needs to be diesel to traverse the route it needs to.

Not only would a Liverpool to Kettering via Leicester and Corby solve this issue, but it would also provide a head-start on building that southern end market by providing far better connectivity than Corby to Melton Mowbray as part of a service which on day one is likely to be hugely popular over over parts of the line. Reversing at Leicester to get to Corby might seem illogical, but it's exactly what happens further up north, and it provides a direct service. One small compromise for a lot of gain.

 

[B&I]

I don't think that can be said. There are very few trains that currently run, on a line which had been closed for yonks, which is useless for commuting. Those three things together mean that there is nothing to be gleaned about the potential from current services.

Hourly Corby and Oakham to Leicester could potentially be very useful to develop commuter flows into Leicester, opening up more job opportunities and developing the regional economy. Effectively doubling the service between Kettering and Corby/Leicester would also do much to increase the viability of commuting by rail from there too. Oakham also is home to a decent school, which some families in Corby might be interested in sending their children to. Having both London and Leicester-bound connectivity would increase the viability/attractiveness of Corby as a place to live, which is part of a national objective of encouraging growth outside of London.

After a few years of operation, I would expect Corby station in particular to be well used for both directions. In future years, perhaps it might even help build the case for rebuilding/electrifying northwards to Peterborough.

In the first few years yes it would need to bed in. People don't start using things like this overnight, it takes time to build up the market. That is why I say joined-up thinking, in making it effectively an "add-on" to a Liverpool to Leicester service. This is something which is officially wanted, but having a unit idling at Leicester station is likely to be a stumbling block. It also needs to be diesel to traverse the route it needs to.

Not only would a Liverpool to Kettering via Leicester and Corby solve this issue, but it would also provide a head-start on building that southern end market by providing far better connectivity than Corby to Melton Mowbray as part of a service which on day one is likely to be hugely popular over over parts of the line. Reversing at Leicester to get to Corby might seem illogical, but it's exactly what happens further up north, and it provides a direct service. One small compromise for a lot of gain.

Merseytravel's enthusiasm for a direct link to Leicester mystifies me. Surely if there was a much faster Liverpool-Derby link via Crewe, Leicester could easily be reached by changing there?

 

[Kettledrum]

I don't think that can be said. There are very few trains that currently run, on a line which had been closed for yonks, which is useless for commuting. Those three things together mean that there is nothing to be gleaned about the potential from current services.

Reminds me a little bit of the borders railway where passenger numbers have been far higher than anyone anticipated.

It takes a few years of running a regular convenient and reliable service to attract a regular passenger stream, or to attract commuters to move into the area. If there's no service, or a really poor service, of course they won't come.

 

[Qwerty133]

Merseytravel's enthusiasm for a direct link to Leicester mystifies me. Surely if there was a much faster Liverpool-Derby link via Crewe, Leicester could easily be reached by changing there?

If Leicester to Liverpool was such an important market it would be just as fast if not faster on the WCML if the service stopped at Nuneaton. Pushing further services on the Derby to Crewe line full stop makes little sense full stop really- there is good reason that the service continues to be operated by single 153s the vast majority of the time.

 

[Failed Unit]

If Leicester to Liverpool was such an important market it would be just as fast if not faster on the WCML if the service stopped at Nuneaton. Pushing further services on the Derby to Crewe line full stop makes little sense full stop really- there is good reason that the service continues to be operated by single 153s the vast majority of the time.

Yep. It is all EMT have. I am sure if they had more 2 coach trains they would use them on such routes.

 

[Qwerty133]

Yep. It is all EMT have. I am sure if they had more 2 coach trains they would use them on such routes.

Yes, but the fact that Skegness and even Matlock services get 2 coach trains in priority to Crewe services says something.

 

[B&I]

If Leicester to Liverpool was such an important market it would be just as fast if not faster on the WCML if the service stopped at Nuneaton. Pushing further services on the Derby to Crewe line full stop makes little sense full stop really- there is good reason that the service continues to be operated by single 153s the vast majority of the time.

Don't mention the N(uneaton) word! Blood was nearly spilt on another thread over suggestions more trains should call there to improve connections. But yes, it would be as sensible way to get to Leicester from the northwest.

My almost pathological fixation with a Liverpool-Derby-Crewe service arises from how ludicrously slow the Liverpool-Norwich currently is because of the detour via Sheffield in order to serve as maby large markets with as few trains as possible. I appreciate you'd need work at Crewe, if this was to be done pre-HS2, and that Stoke-Derby would need a lot of work to make it reasonably fast, but it's a Cinderella line which could do with that work anyway.

 

[MG11]

More capacity on Norwich - Liverpool services. Lots more capacity. With a really good bar onboard. And a special privilege card, entitling anyone who has ever had to spend any part of that journey crammed into the vestibule of a 158, admiring some stranger's nasal hair from a distance of two to three centimetres, to free cocktails for life.

If EMT got more Class 158s at some point or enough cascaded DMUs to focus the 158s exclusively in the Connect route, they could permanently couple them in to four car sets and have a micro-bar where the redundant cab space was, so that passengers can collect refreshments if the train is too overcrowded for the trolley to get through.

 

[Camden]

If Leicester to Liverpool was such an important market it would be just as fast if not faster on the WCML if the service stopped at Nuneaton. Pushing further services on the Derby to Crewe line full stop makes little sense full stop really- there is good reason that the service continues to be operated by single 153s the vast majority of the time.

It's not a "Leicester to Liverpool" market issue, it's "Crewe and Stoke to Liverpool", "Crewe to Stoke", "Stoke to Nottingham" commuting, "Stoke, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester to Liverpool" visiting/business (along with Crewe interchange possibilities)... plus then the Corby/Kettering/Leicester dynamics I mentioned above. Liverpool was wrongly disconnected from many places in the past, and currently lacks connections which would stand to provide regional economic benefits, including raising the patronage on the current services which are incomplete without a major city terminus. The ability to pair this with and enable an economic opportunity at the southern end of the connection provides another reason to do it.

 

[DanTrain]

My almost pathological fixation with a Liverpool-Derby-Crewe service arises from how ludicrously slow the Liverpool-Norwich currently is because of the detour via Sheffield in order to serve as maby large markets with as few trains as possible. I appreciate you'd need work at Crewe, if this was to be done pre-HS2, and that Stoke-Derby would need a lot of work to make it reasonably fast, but it's a Cinderella line which could do with that work anyway.

Liverpool to Norwich has been discussed to death in several threads, but I don’t think it’s speed (or lack of) is entirely down to the Sheffield reversal (that adds on 15 mins). Liverpool - Crewe - Derby - Notts is a nice idea tbh, but I doubt whether it would be much quicker than Liv - Norwich.

One idea for Liverpool - Norwich would be to split it, and sort of as suggested above, it could run Liverpool - Nottingham as a 4 or 6 car unit (ideally a 170/185) and then run Norwich to Leeds/Bradford, which would replace the current Nottingham to Leeds (or supplement it if the capacity is there).

There's no point trying to route anything else down the Hope Valley, it's at capacity, and any new capacity is slipping into the future and may well be nabbed by TPE, so I doubt a Manchester - London via Chesterfield service would ever make it past the crayon stage (and if it did it would have to call at Sheffield, otherwise it would only be providing Manchester to Derby and Leicster, which I doubt justifies a service on such congested lines).