East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

[yorksrob]

There are just a lot of things not adding up here.
1. Only 4x 5car 180 units that are known to be coming available soon.
2. Another 10x 5car 180 at GC is something happening with these? (The Angel lease for the 180s to GC lease goes to 2022)
3. The new MML timetable especially post Derby rebuild could eliminate the need for the 6 car ex GC HST sets.
4. Corby electric service start down for December 20 but could it be earlier with a limited EMU service (no Bi-modes) and no new Braybrooke supply???

With 1, 3 & 4 you could just about make things work but it would need a decent length trains and 2tph on the Corby EMUs (to soak up demand south of Kettering) and have a number of other service running in shorter formation than present.

Crystal Ball Gazing:
Subleasing a 5th 180 from GC (e.g. when the sublease to Northern ends) could help on maintenance cover for the other 4?
Are GC potentially moving away from 180s e.g. an HST +MK4 solution (or IEPs) which might make more 180s available? GC have track access agreements till 2026.

Wouldn't you still be left with a lot of short form DMU's on former HST diagrams ?

 

[hwl]

The more interesting question is how they're replacing 10 HST diagrams with 4x Class 180s from Hull Trains. The Grand Central ones have a long term future with Grand Central I thought - unless of course "HSTs" means just the short HSTs.

The short HSTs (2 trains in weekday service) were only added to cover a very small number of services due to timetabling /diagramming difficulties arising from the Thameslink timetable changes but no corresponding completion of Derby rebuild and timetabling changes. A new EMT/R timetable might remove the need for the short HSTs. In which case. Hence 180s might be able to take over from some 8car HSTs
Going EMU to Corby would release a few of 222s... (At least 3) and overall diagramming might improve too. The other effect would be to encourage everyone at Kettering and further south on to EMUs (e.g. Wellingborough and Bedford EMU calls only...) making the Nottingham / Sheffield services theoretically a bit quieter so some justification* to have some shorter trains than currently.
*Sir Humphrey might use the words "bold" or "brave" to accompany.

 

[cactustwirly]

The short HSTs (2 trains in weekday service) were only added to cover a very small number of services due to timetabling /diagramming difficulties arising from the Thameslink timetable changes but no corresponding completion of Derby rebuild and timetabling changes. A new EMT/R timetable might remove the need for the short HSTs. In which case. Hence 180s might be able to take over from some 8car HSTs
Going EMU to Corby would release a few of 222s... (At least 3) and overall diagramming might improve too. The other effect would be to encourage everyone at Kettering and further south on to EMUs (e.g. Wellingborough and Bedford EMU calls only...) making the Nottingham / Sheffield services theoretically a bit quieter so some justification* to have some shorter trains than currently.
*Sir Humphrey might use the words "bold" or "brave" to accompany.

But the HST services don't normally stop at Kettering or Wellingborough...

 

[hwl]

But the HST services don't normally stop at Kettering or Wellingborough...

But a shorter 222 could if the Wellingbough, Bedford and most Kettering passengers were encouraged on to EMUs.

Total HST removal doesn't make logical sense for me, this more a case of examining what the changes would be to attempt to make it work with a limited number of 180s

 

[yorksrob]

But a shorter 222 could if the Wellingbough, Bedford and most Kettering passengers were encouraged on to EMUs.

So not only are we cramming the existing passengers onto shorter trains in London, we're expecting more to get on in the Midlands !

 

[43074]

There are just a lot of things not adding up here.
1. Only 4x 5car 180 units that are known to be coming available soon.
2. Another 10x 5car 180 at GC is something happening with these? (The Angel lease for the 180s to GC lease goes to 2022)
3. The new MML timetable especially post Derby rebuild could eliminate the need for the 6 car ex GC HST sets.
4. Corby electric service start down for December 20 but could it be earlier with a limited EMU service (no Bi-modes) and no new Braybrooke supply???

With 1, 3 & 4 you could just about make things work but it would need a decent length trains and 2tph on the Corby EMUs (to soak up demand south of Kettering) and have a number of other service running in shorter formation than present.

Crystal Ball Gazing:
Subleasing a 5th 180 from GC (e.g. when the sublease to Northern ends) could help on maintenance cover for the other 4?
Are GC potentially moving away from 180s e.g. an HST +MK4 solution (or IEPs) which might make more 180s available? GC have track access agreements till 2026.

Excellent post - I think we probably only have a few of the facts of a bigger plan: it's totally plausible that the 180s will be moving to the MML and that this would help reduce the dependence on HSTs to an extent, the question is what else is being done in addition to this if, according to some, ALL of them are going within 9 months.

 

[cactustwirly]

But a shorter 222 could if the Wellingbough, Bedford and most Kettering passengers were encouraged on to EMUs.

Total HST removal doesn't make logical sense for me, this more a case of examining what the changes would be to attempt to make it work with a limited number of 180s

Hmm? I don't get what you're saying?
Kettering and Wellingborough are already served by short 222s

 

[Burgerstahl]

I work within the industry and I work with the trains in question.

The information is passed on in good faith for those of you with a passing interest. Specific details and other such information cannot be disclosed (or certainly shouldn’t)on a public forum for obvious reasons.

I’ll revert to my “lurking” status

Thank you for un-lurking !
I think anyone in the industry will understand in good faith why certain details and yours and semaphoreslim’s identity are held back.

 

[hwl]

Thank you for un-lurking !
I think anyone in the industry will understand in good faith why certain details and yours and semaphoreslim’s identity are held back.

Agreed and they should not be getting hassled about it either.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed and they should not be getting hassled about it either.

No one is hassling anyone.

 

[hwl]

Excellent post - I think we probably only have a few of the facts of a bigger plan: it's totally plausible that the 180s will be moving to the MML and that this would help reduce the dependence on HSTs to an extent, the question is what else is being done in addition to this if, according to some, ALL of them are going within 9 months.

I also think were are missing several key pieces of info. The HST Power Car (with off the shelf Brush ETS solution from 73 rebuilds) +MK4 option was previously being examined and would still make sense in terms of capacity and time scales for example.

 

[yorksrob]

I also think were are missing several key pieces of info. The HST Power Car (with off the shelf Brush ETS solution from 73 rebuilds) +MK4 option was previously being examined and would still make sense in terms of capacity and time scales for example.

It's hard to see how it would be any more cost-effective or practical than the PRM lite modifications of the HST fleet previously suggested.

 

[Qwerty133]

I think most people are missing that most of the 8 coach HSTs are used on the diagrams they are simply because they are the diagrams that could cope with the slower acceleration rather than that those being the services that need the most capacity. In practice the HSTs are often half empty leaving Leicester in both directions and many of their diagrams could quite easily be covered by 4/5 coach trains, it is the services that are currently operated by the 5 coach units (which are actually busier than the HST services much of the time) and Sundays that are in need of extra capacity.
The other overdue change on the intercity stock is for one of the first class coaches on the 7 car meridians being converted into standard as on many services there are less than a handful of passengers spread between the three first-class coaches while standard is full and standing and the 7 coach units literally have more than double the number of first class seats than the 5 coach units.

 

[yorksrob]

I think most people are missing that most of the 8 coach HSTs are used on the diagrams they are simply because they are the diagrams that could cope with the slower acceleration rather than that those being the services that need the most capacity. In practice the HSTs are often half empty leaving Leicester in both directions and many of their diagrams could quite easily be covered by 4/5 coach trains, it is the services that are currently operated by the 5 coach units (which are actually busier than the HST services much of the time) and Sundays that are in need of extra capacity.
The other overdue change on the intercity stock is for one of the first class coaches on the 7 car meridians being converted into standard as on many services there are less than a handful of passengers spread between the three first-class coaches while standard is full and standing and the 7 coach units literally have more than double the number of first class seats than the 5 coach units.

I can assure you that I've been on many very busy HST's leaving and entering St Pancras.

Are you trying to claim that reducing capacity from eight to five carriages wouldn't involve a massive degradation of the quality of service ?

If the HST's are as full of spare capacity as you claim, why haven't either of the routes franchise holders simply removed one carriage from each and bagged the performance improvement already ?

Do you not think that the 'busy' nature of the 222 diagrams might be because they are only five carriages long and therefore smaller ?

How exactly is removing 8 carriage HST's going to decrease crowding on already crowded 222's anyway ?

 

[Qwerty133]

I can assure you that I've been on many very busy HST's leaving and entering St Pancras.

Are you trying to claim that reducing capacity from eight to five carriages wouldn't involve a massive degradation of the quality of service ?

If the HST's are as full of spare capacity as you claim, why haven't either of the routes franchise holders simply removed one carriage from each and bagged the performance improvement already ?

On a handful of peak services, it will be a major issue, as it may well be from stations south of Market Harborough but it is overstating things to say that there is no spare capacity on any of the services operated by HSTs at any point in there route. As a short term measure I think it would be entirely possible for EMT to cope with the services being cut to 5 coaches as long as all calls south of Harborough other than pick up only northbound and set down only southbound calls at Kettering were removed from services through Leicester and the Corby service was able to run as 12 coach EMUs during peak hours. Clearly, this wouldn't be acceptable in the long run but I think it would be the least bad option if the DfT were holding firm on the HSTs being withdrawn by the end of the year.

 

[yorksrob]

On a handful of peak services, it will be a major issue, as it may well be from stations south of Market Harborough but it is overstating things to say that there is no spare capacity on any of the services operated by HSTs at any point in there route. As a short term measure I think it would be entirely possible for EMT to cope with the services being cut to 5 coaches as long as all calls south of Harborough other than pick up only northbound and set down only southbound calls at Kettering were removed from services through Leicester and the Corby service was able to run as 12 coach EMUs during peak hours. Clearly, this wouldn't be acceptable in the long run but I think it would be the least bad option if the DfT were holding firm on the HSTs being withdrawn by the end of the year.

They are all options that will lead to greater discomfort and inconvenience to passengers.

The key issue is that the DfT should not be insisting on a precipitous early withdrawal of the HST's either to save face or placate lobbyists with a limited understanding of the issues.

 

[43074]

I suppose splitting and joining using 5-car 222s could be part of the solution - three HSTs stable at Cricklewood in the off peak and the capacity is required South of Leicester in the majority of cases, if splitting and joining were to occur at Leicester in the peak direction it would reduce the dependence on HSTs and free up paths for additional EMU services South of Kettering before December 2020. Most arrivals at Leicester before 07:30 don't need 8- or 10-coaches at that point, as already noted most of the capacity is required from the Northants stations to London.

 

[cactustwirly]

On a handful of peak services, it will be a major issue, as it may well be from stations south of Market Harborough but it is overstating things to say that there is no spare capacity on any of the services operated by HSTs at any point in there route. As a short term measure I think it would be entirely possible for EMT to cope with the services being cut to 5 coaches as long as all calls south of Harborough other than pick up only northbound and set down only southbound calls at Kettering were removed from services through Leicester and the Corby service was able to run as 12 coach EMUs during peak hours. Clearly, this wouldn't be acceptable in the long run but I think it would be the least bad option if the DfT were holding firm on the HSTs being withdrawn by the end of the year.

HST services are actually quite busy, a 5 car 222 would not be able to cope!

 

[Kneedown]

I've not done the maths on how many units are required for what. Maths was never my strong point. If it is true about the 180's arriving here, and i've heard nothing official from our management team, is it possible that they could be a stop gap to increase the Corby service to 2tph before the juice gets switched on and EMU's take over?

 

[Qwerty133]

I suppose splitting and joining using 5-car 222s could be part of the solution - three HSTs stable at Cricklewood in the off peak and the capacity is required South of Leicester in the majority of cases, if splitting and joining were to occur at Leicester in the peak direction it would reduce the dependence on HSTs and free up paths for additional EMU services South of Kettering before December 2020. Most arrivals at Leicester before 07:30 don't need 8- or 10-coaches at that point, as already noted most of the capacity is required from the Northants stations to London.

The whole point is that it is far from optimal to serve the commuter stations in Northants with the longer distance intercity services. Ideally, long term the Corby's will have sufficient capacity to be the vast majority of the London bound service from said stations with connections at Kettering for passengers wanting to travel north via Leicester.

 

[Qwerty133]

HST services are actually quite busy, a 5 car 222 would not be able to cope!

Leaving Leicester southbound there is typically more passengers on the preceding ex Sheffield service which is already formed of a 5 car than the HST, other than for Market Harborough (which is hardly the busiest station in the world) capacity south of Leicester will be better provided by the ex Corby services as soon as the electrification of the line to Corby is complete. It also has to be remembered that the not insignificant number of megabusplus passengers on the HST operated services will end when the franchise transfers to Abellio.

 

[cactustwirly]

Leaving Leicester southbound there is typically more passengers on the preceding ex Sheffield service which is already formed of a 5 car than the HST, other than for Market Harborough (which is hardly the busiest station in the world) capacity south of Leicester will be better provided by the ex Corby services as soon as the electrification of the line to Corby is complete. It also has to be remembered that the not insignificant number of megabusplus passengers on the HST operated services will end when the franchise transfers to Abellio.

From personal experience, they're about 3/4s full upon leaving Leicester, and since the seating capacity of a 5 car 222 is significantly less than an 8 car HST, I'm not convinced it would be enough capacity (7 car 222 would be just right IMO)

 

[InTheEastMids]

I still an struggling with the dissonant positions of

1. All HSTs gone by early 2020 (insidrr info)
2. DfT announcement: from May 2020, modern diesel trains will begin to replace aging HSTs . Timetable changes will enable faster journey times from December 2020

The DfT would have surely crafted this statement when everything was fully agreed with Abellio, so what has changed and why did DfT sign this off, if a week later things have changed quite significantly?

So can anyone think how these two pieces of information can be reconciled?

 

[londonmidland]

Are we due to get a more detailed report of what is to come/changes that will be made? If so, when are we likely to see this?

 

[TheBigD]

Purely hyperthetical....

There currently a fair bit of slack in the MML timetable. Sheffield semi fasts have around 70 minutes turn round at Sheffield, and the current HST worked Nottingham fasts also have around 70 minutes turn around at St Pancras. If the timetable can be speeded up a bit or amended slightly you could potentially save 2 units just by having shorter turn round times.

The current 2 + 6 HSTs only cover 1 diagram in the morning and 2 in the evening. The evening turn could be covered by terminating the 1719 St Pancras to Derby at Nottingham and using that to form the 1945 back to London.

Corby currently needs 3 units off peak and an extra unit for Corby - Derby in the morning and evening. Electrification.will see these released by EMUs.

So potentially you have 4 x 180, 4 x 222 off the Corby, and saving 2 more diagrams through quicker turn around times, to replace the 10 x HST diagrams. With 12 car EMUs taking the commuter load south of Kettering, replacing the HSTs seems quite doable with a little bit of rejigging.

 

[tbtc]

You are perhaps correct regarding RR's replacement of full length trains with DMU's. I may have led a sheltered life in the South as we were lucky enough to have retained proper, full length trains for much longer.

Nevertheless, to the point in question, we have now had two posters, who it appears are in the industry, who are claiming that a particularly bad decision for passengers has been taken. If this is the case, it's difficult to see how it can have been taken, other than through political expediency.

There's still a lot of dust to settle - the franchise has only just been awarded and one of the other bidders may appeal - and lots of different scenarios that would meet the criteria of "start to replace HSTs with modern trains" (or whatever the wording was) - I think it's still too early to start making some of the pronouncements that are being made on here.

3. The new MML timetable especially post Derby rebuild could eliminate the need for the 6 car ex GC HST sets

The short HSTs (2 trains in weekday service) were only added to cover a very small number of services due to timetabling /diagramming difficulties arising from the Thameslink timetable changes but no corresponding completion of Derby rebuild and timetabling changes. A new EMT/R timetable might remove the need for the short HSTs. In which case. Hence 180s might be able to take over from some 8car HSTs

Good points re the six coach HSTs - eighteen coaches but didn't actually add much capacity to the franchise (just used to cope with the fact that Thameslink meant EMT needed more trains to provide the same number of departures) - if that is now settling down then we could lose those three HSTs with minimal fuss (not *no* fuss, just minimal, in the grand scheme of things)

*Sir Humphrey might use the words "bold" or "brave" to accompany.

I think most people are missing that most of the 8 coach HSTs are used on the diagrams they are simply because they are the diagrams that could cope with the slower acceleration rather than that those being the services that need the most capacity. In practice the HSTs are often half empty leaving Leicester in both directions and many of their diagrams could quite easily be covered by 4/5 coach trains, it is the services that are currently operated by the 5 coach units (which are actually busier than the HST services much of the time) and Sundays that are in need of extra capacity

That fits in with my belief - the Sheffield/Derby services need more capacity but the Nottingham services have more seats - but then that might be based on where I live!

I still an struggling with the dissonant positions of

1. All HSTs gone by early 2020 (insidrr info)
2. DfT announcement: from May 2020, modern diesel trains will begin to replace aging HSTs . Timetable changes will enable faster journey times from December 2020

The DfT would have surely crafted this statement when everything was fully agreed with Abellio, so what has changed and why did DfT sign this off, if a week later things have changed quite significantly?

So can anyone think how these two pieces of information can be reconciled?

True - if Abellio really were planning on getting rid of all of the HSTs in 2019 then it seems strange for them to announce something as vague as "we'll start to get rid of the first of the fifteen HSTs from May 2020" - why wouldn't they be trumpeting the news (that the 1970s trains were leaving) if they wanted a good positive spin from day one?

If these "insider" claims are true (and I'm not saying that they are...) then this must be the first case of a TOC promising a deadline and then delivering significantly more significantly faster.

 

[Pete_uk]

How many HST sets do MML have and what could replace them all by 2021?

 

[yorksrob]

Purely hyperthetical....

There currently a fair bit of slack in the MML timetable. Sheffield semi fasts have around 70 minutes turn round at Sheffield, and the current HST worked Nottingham fasts also have around 70 minutes turn around at St Pancras. If the timetable can be speeded up a bit or amended slightly you could potentially save 2 units just by having shorter turn round times.

The current 2 + 6 HSTs only cover 1 diagram in the morning and 2 in the evening. The evening turn could be covered by terminating the 1719 St Pancras to Derby at Nottingham and using that to form the 1945 back to London.

Corby currently needs 3 units off peak and an extra unit for Corby - Derby in the morning and evening. Electrification.will see these released by EMUs.

So potentially you have 4 x 180, 4 x 222 off the Corby, and saving 2 more diagrams through quicker turn around times, to replace the 10 x HST diagrams. With 12 car EMUs taking the commuter load south of Kettering, replacing the HSTs seems quite doable with a little bit of rejigging.

That sounds like a very stressed timetable with little leeway for things going wrong. And that would be for top of class units with the best reliability in Western civilisation.

 

[TheBigD]

How many HST sets do MML have and what could replace them all by 2021?

8 x 8 coach HSTs diagrammed SX.
2 x 6 coach HSTs diagrammed SX.

3 x 8 coach HST sets just do peak hour runs and are stabled at Cricklewood in between the peaks.
The 6 caoch HST just do a couple of trips.

 

[yorksrob]

If these "insider" claims are true (and I'm not saying that they are...) then this must be the first case of a TOC promising a deadline and then delivering significantly more significantly faster.

Or officials being 'spooked' by something and making a rash decision.