First Rail Stirling (Lumo) Rolling Stock

[Railperf]

I seem to recall reading in the 805/807 thread that the voyager EPS differential was to remain, and instead that MU speeds won't exist where the voyager differential currently

No. UK railway standards state there can only be 3 posted speed limits. The standard Permissible Speed (PS) on the WCML is for all trains. In certain places there is a single Enhanced Permissible Speed (EPS) limit for both Class 390 and 221. In some places there are two EPS limits - the lower EPS speed limit applies to Class 221 only.

The introduction of Multiple Unit (MU) speeds will see the lower EPS limit removed. In practice that means PS limits throughout with additional sections of EPS for the tilting 390's and in some cases a few additional smaller pockets of MU limits. That means if tilting Class 221's are are reintroduced on WCML services, then they would have to run to either PS or MU speeds south of Weaver Junction. But a 221 can run at EPS speeds north of Weaver.
It hasn't been clarified whether 221's could run at EPS speeds over the sections where previously there was only a single EPS limit for both 390/221 but I guess that adds too much complication and isn't required now anyway.

 

[QSK19]

Hopefully this means that EMR get their 810s nice and quickly as a result of this timescale. I assume the 7 cars will each lose a carriage, with one 5 car gaining a carriage from the spares, leaving a total of 3 spare carriages left oved ???

So does this mean that ScotRail will get a combination of 5 and 6 car trains? I suppose that is a seperate discussion...

As others have said in this thread and other ones linked to EMR IC operations, the 222s will go regardless of 810 progress. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 810s start to come into service in 2026 (introduction currently behind with testing, training agreements with unions still not in place, etc); so there is a very real risk of EMR having an IC-stock shortage. 810 introduction won’t be sped up because of this - too many unresolved issues.

One hopes EMR are planning for all eventualities, including:
- Reducing any doubled up diagrams to single ones.
- Reducing the frequency of IC services.
- Shortening IC services to Kettering and effectively utilise the 360s as a shuttle between there and St Pancras.
- (Re)introduce 170s to mainline services at the cost of some low-revenue Regional services.

Not saying which of those is more likely (insiders no doubt have more of a clue than me!); but all options must be on the table if 222s do go before 810 introduction.

Well they are Diesel Electrics…

Companies always take an opportunity to put spin on even the smallest of details and technically tell the truth (eg “our whole fleet consists of electric traction*” and then in small print “*all of our trains have electric motors providing power to the wheels”)

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I do think FirstGroup are going to be in trouble with the 222s. In the ORR application approval letter, it specifically references (and therefore mandates) "Grand Union has also included in it's business plan that it intends to offer a broader range of seating options for passengers".

There has been no application to vary this by FirstGroup, so the Class 222s are going to need some fairly extensive refurbishment to comply with the original business plan presented and specifically reference it in the approval letter, or they're going to have to ask the ORR for a variation. However, given that the ORR approved the rights based on that plan, it could cause some issues going forwards. The application was not (and is not) for a pack-them-in cheap approach. There's also obligations around catering etc.

I suspect a few competitors may be raising an eyebrow at this, unless the refurbishment for the 222s is actually substantial.

 

[quantinghome]

With the Class 222s going here and to Scotrail we can only hope something is being worked out for cross-country...

 

[Snow1964]

There is also a Preston-London service in the First Group PLC regulatory announcevent.

FirstGroup plc (or the `Group') is pleased to provide an update on its new London to Stirling open access rail service.

As previously announced, in 2024 the Group acquired Grand Union Wcml which included track access rights granted by the Office of Rail and Road (`ORR') to run open access rail services from London Euston to Stirling. The current track access agreement runs until 2030 and includes four return services a day (three on Sundays) and an additional, fifth daily return service between Preston and London, seven days a week.

The Group has subsequently entered into rolling stock leases for the duration of the current track access agreement, for five Class 222 six car diesel trains with Eversholt Rail, with a total seat capacity of c.340 standard class seats per service, representing c.447m annual seat miles when fully operational. Services are currently expected to commence mid 2026 following the delivery of the trains and staff training.

The new service will be operated under the successful Lumo brand and will provide more choice for passengers with significantly increased direct connections to and from London and central and southern Scotland, making use of available paths on the network. Stations served will include Stirling, Larbert, Greenfaulds (serving Cumbernauld), Whifflet (serving Coatbridge), Motherwell, Lockerbie, Carlisle, Preston, Crewe, Nuneaton, Milton Keynes and London Euston. Of these stations, Whifflet, Greenfaulds and Larbert will have their first direct services to London.

Following a period of mobilisation, the Group expects to achieve annual revenues of c.£50m and a low double digit operating profit margin, pre IFRS 16. Looking ahead, the Group will evaluate opportunities to extend the track access agreement, making use of the option for additional electric or bi-mode trains from the Group's recently announced £500m rolling stock lease agreement.

Rolling Stock Agreement for Stirling open access service

 

[QSK19]

With the Class 222s going here and to Scotrail we can only hope something is being worked out for cross-country...

EMR you mean? Let’s hope alternative plans are in place!

 

[brad465]

222s must be the most reconfigured MU fleet going. To think there used to be 9-car units, now they look set for a 3rd/4th reconfiguration.

 

[Iskra]

I do think FirstGroup are going to be in trouble with the 222s. In the ORR application approval letter, it specifically references (and therefore mandates) "Grand Union has also included in it's business plan that it intends to offer a broader range of seating options for passengers".

There has been no application to vary this by FirstGroup, so the Class 222s are going to need some fairly extensive refurbishment to comply with the original business plan presented and specifically reference it in the approval letter, or they're going to have to ask the ORR for a variation. However, given that the ORR approved the rights based on that plan, it could cause some issues going forwards. The application was not (and is not) for a pack-them-in cheap approach. There's also obligations around catering etc.

I suspect a few competitors may be raising an eyebrow at this, unless the refurbishment for the 222s is actually substantial.

Pretty sure they could get around that fairly easily, it’s worded loosely enough that just providing STD and 1st is already fulfilling that commitment.*

*I’m not on commission (sadly)

 

[800001]

EMR you mean? Let’s hope alternative plans are in place!

XC. As some people thought the 222s may go there.

 

[Iskra]

EMR you mean? Let’s hope alternative plans are in place!

No, EMR have a transformative rolling stock order in place. XC are in desperate need and are ‘feeding off scraps.’ I do think the next IET order will be a big one for XC, but I wish they would get on with it…

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think FirstGroup are going to be in trouble with the 222s. In the ORR application approval letter, it specifically references (and therefore mandates) "Grand Union has also included in it's business plan that it intends to offer a broader range of seating options for passengers".

There has been no application to vary this by FirstGroup, so the Class 222s are going to need some fairly extensive refurbishment to comply with the original business plan presented and specifically reference it in the approval letter, or they're going to have to ask the ORR for a variation. However, given that the ORR approved the rights based on that plan, it could cause some issues going forwards. The application was not (and is not) for a pack-them-in cheap approach. There's also obligations around catering etc.

I suspect a few competitors may be raising an eyebrow at this, unless the refurbishment for the 222s is actually substantial.

Broader range compared to what, though? It's not quite Lumo's approach, but if they kept First Class that would be broader than the normal Lumo offering. If they reckon they can sell it at a suitable uplift* then they might find that just as profitable as converting to Standard.

With short units it isn't going to be able to offer a broader range compared to Avanti's three-class offering. Four classes on a six-car unit would be madness.

* A selling point could be that due to the lower seating density if you go in 1st you could bring a proper sized bag rather than the carry-on size they presently allow? I seem to recall at least one European OAO offers different luggage allowances by class.

 

[Railperf]

North of Crewe is essentially to be considered as not electrified as far as any new services, trains etc. There is simply not enough electric power available in the infrastructure at key locations, therefore it is essentially limited to diesel or some future battery technology.

Similar happened on the top end of the East Coast Mainline.

It will undoubtedly abstract passengers from road services, either cars or coaches, so environment benefits are still substantial.

So is this a bad industry decision then?. Why were Avanti under pressure to minimise diesel running and ditch the 221 fleet, when other open access operators are welcomed using effectively the same stock that was not wanted under the wires? Are Glasgow services that full that we need 6 services per day from open access? Could Avanti lowering prices fill their hourly services more effectively. Someone mentioned East Coast as an example. Yes we have Lumo running electric only at the expense of TPE who have to run partially diesel as the OLE is not man enough. I was in the 20:27 Lumo service from Kings Cross - packed to the rafters - 400 odd seats filled- while LNER services either side had 400 spare seats on them. How does that make sense? And at the time - the LUMO fares were barely cheaper than LNER.
Remembering that WCML south is declared effectively congested, but we are trying to find another MU path - is that forward thinking as best use of the asset?

 

[Bletchleyite]

222s must be the most reconfigured MU fleet going. To think there used to be 9-car units, now they look set for a 3rd/4th reconfiguration.

It's a good design feature of these units that the vehicles are (aside from the lack of compressors on the driving vehicles*) basically 15x style independent vehicles and can be configured however you want.

* Though this barely matters as a 2-car formation would have less capacity than a 153 and is thus basically useless. Four is the shortest length that would serve any useful purpose.

So is this a bad industry decision then?. Why were Avanti under pressure to minimise diesel running and ditch the 221 fleet, when other open access operators are welcomed using effectively the same stock that was not wanted under the wires? Are Glasgow services that full that we need 6 services per day from open access? Could Avanti lowering prices fill their hourly services more effectively.

The Avanti north WCML services are generally busy. The TPE ones (similarly silly short trains) are usually full, often and standing.

 

[QSK19]

XC. As some people thought the 222s may go there.

Ah got it! I know what the OP meant now.

No, EMR have a transformative rolling stock order in place. XC are in desperate need and are ‘feeding off scraps.’ I do think the next IET order will be a big one for XC, but I wish they would get on with it…

As above. And when you wrote “is being worked out”, thought you referred to potential shortfall in EMR IC stock; but got what you meant now

 

[Railperf]

The Avanti north WCML services are generally busy. The TPE ones (similarly silly short trains) are usually full, often and standing.

Edinburgh to Manchester seemed to be in high demand. As you rightly say too short a consist and additionally not frequent enough.
But DfT don't seem to want to fund longer trains and the power upgrades required. Let open access come in with cheaper diesels to solve the problem - sticking plaster comes to mind.

 

[AJDesiro]

No. UK railway standards state there can only be 3 posted speed limits. The standard Permissible Speed (PS) on the WCML is for all trains. In certain places there is a single Enhanced Permissible Speed (EPS) limit for both Class 390 and 221. In some places there are two EPS limits - the lower EPS speed limit applies to Class 221 only.

The introduction of Multiple Unit (MU) speeds will see the lower EPS limit removed. In practice that means PS limits throughout with additional sections of EPS for the tilting 390's and in some cases a few additional smaller pockets of MU limits. That means if tilting Class 221's are are reintroduced on WCML services, then they would have to run to either PS or MU speeds south of Weaver Junction. But a 221 can run at EPS speeds north of Weaver.
It hasn't been clarified whether 221's could run at EPS speeds over the sections where previously there was only a single EPS limit for both 390/221 but I guess that adds too much complication and isn't required now anyway.

This was your own post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...5-807s-hitachi-at300-sets.214752/post-6877203

So I assume this has changed?

 

[Kite159]

So I guess 3 of the remaining 7 coach units donating a coach to 3 of the 5 coach units to create a fleet of 6x 6 coach units.

It will be interesting to see what they do with the interiors considering the imbalance between first and standard class

 

[swt_passenger]

XC. As some people thought the 222s may go there.

I think you mean a few people here hope for it, with all the evidence stacked against it. Even the last few 221s seems a step too far for DfT…

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Ridiculous decision to use 222's . Worst case these should have been 221's as these have tilt ability for the northern end of the WCML - despite losing the 221 EPS limits south of Weaver Jn. Avanti replace the 221's to go cleaner electric and ORR allow more diesels under the wires. A poor decision environmentally. Should have insisted Lumo purchase suitable bi- mode stock to reduce diesel running under the wires. Of course this decision probably reflects the fact that power supplies are not strong enough and buys time to do the necessary OLE upgrades. Still a lack of joined up thinking on our railway.

The stopping pattern for the Stirling service reintroduces non-stop trains Carlisle-Preston, and Preston-Crewe.
Presumably this will compensate for the lower PS/MU speeds of the 222s, while tilting 390s serve the intermediate stations at EPS speeds.

 

[SeanM1997]

Maybe too early to know for sure but will all the new Lumo Stirling/Preston - London Euston services call at Crewe?

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe too early to know for sure but will all the new Lumo Stirling/Preston - London Euston services call at Crewe?

Yes, according to the announcement, quoted in post #95 earlier today:

”Stations served will include Stirling, Larbert, Greenfaulds (serving Cumbernauld), Whifflet (serving Coatbridge), Motherwell, Lockerbie, Carlisle, Preston, Crewe, Nuneaton, Milton Keynes and London Euston.”

 

[SeanM1997]

Yes, according to the announcement, quoted in post #95 earlier today.

I ask because it was subject to contingent rights - so if it does happen it would be good news. Crewe - London would be quite competitive with LNWR (hourly), Avanti (hourly via Birmingham; and 2-3 an hour fast) and now Lumo (4 a day)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I ask because it was subject to contingent rights - so if it does happen it would be good news. Crewe - London would be quite competitive with LNWR (hourly), Avanti (hourly via Birmingham; and 2-3 an hour fast) and now Lumo (4 a day)

I can't see them going lower than WMT on fares to be honest, though that depends on what GBR does.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I suspect some trains will stop at Crewe, on a limited basis.

The 07:15 ex Preston will no doubt be in the mind of FirstGroup given it would be the most lucrative.

On approximate timings -

07:15 Preston (Depart)
07:27 Wigan (Pass)
07:36 Warrington (Pass)
07:55 Crewe (Arrival)
into London around 09:40 to 09:45, to then work the 10:20 to Stirling.


You'd have to slot it behind 1R25, the 07:54 Avanti from Crewe to Euston (ex Chester). The Planner or similar would be able to indicate whether there is time for a stop. Platform 5 does look available if you can depart between the 07:49 Birmingham and the 08:04 to Euston via Birmingham, but would likely be 07:56-08:00 to take into account 1R25 and 9A31.

 

[SeanM1997]

I suspect some trains will stop at Crewe, on a limited basis.

The 07:15 ex Preston will no doubt be in the mind of FirstGroup given it would be the most lucrative.

On approximate timings -

07:15 Preston (Depart)
07:27 Wigan (Pass)
07:36 Warrington (Pass)
07:55 Crewe (Arrival)
into London around 09:40 to 09:45, to then work the 10:20 to Stirling.


You'd have to slot it behind 1R25, the 07:54 Avanti from Crewe to Euston (ex Chester). The Planner or similar would be able to indicate whether there is time for a stop. Platform 5 does look available if you can depart between the 07:49 Birmingham and the 08:04 to Euston via Birmingham, but would likely be 07:56-08:00 to take into account 1R25 and 9A31.

Where do you see the proposed timings for the service?

 

[Railperf]

This was your own post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...5-807s-hitachi-at300-sets.214752/post-6877203

So I assume this has changed?

It seems that way... A lot happens in almost a year.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Where do you see the proposed timings for the service?

Stirling to London at 0629, 0920, 1433 and 1720.

London to Stirling at 0720, 1020, 1320 and 1620.

Preston to London at 0715

London to Preston at 2059

Subject to some flex with the exact minutes.

Weekend is roughly the same, later start on a Sunday, I suspect the 06:29 and 07:15 is Mon-Sat only, and same with 07:20 from Euston.

 

[RailWonderer]

So is this a bad industry decision then?. Why were Avanti under pressure to minimise diesel running and ditch the 221 fleet, when other open access operators are welcomed using effectively the same stock that was not wanted under the wires? Are Glasgow services that full that we need 6 services per day from open access? Could Avanti lowering prices fill their hourly services more effectively. Someone mentioned East Coast as an example. Yes we have Lumo running electric only at the expense of TPE who have to run partially diesel as the OLE is not man enough. I was in the 20:27 Lumo service from Kings Cross - packed to the rafters - 400 odd seats filled- while LNER services either side had 400 spare seats on them. How does that make sense? And at the time - the LUMO fares were barely cheaper than LNER.
Remembering that WCML south is declared effectively congested, but we are trying to find another MU path - is that forward thinking as best use of the asset?

They weren't under pressure per se, they won the franchise and had to do something to improve the service, besides the refurbishments. GBR will bring fares more aligned and you would hope more priced according to demand - so cheaper in those off peak weekday services but operators like Lumo will still be cheaper.

 

[Helvellyn]

The seats they come with are quite thick-backed, so it wouldn't surprise me if they replaced them with new thinner-backed ones like their 80x. It would probably be enough extra space, combined with removing tables, to get one more row (or even maybe two) in per vehicle.

Given post #95 has a regulatory statement quoting 340 Standard Class seats per 6-car set I think you're right. It also depends what they do with the space currently occupied by the Buffet and part of the kitchen between the leading passenger door and the first class area (as is). Simple move would be to just gut and use as luggage stores; more complex would to get, add windows and maximise seating. My money would be on the former unless they want to provide large luggage stacks in each coach. New seating also allows them to try push under seat storage for small bags given the next to useless overhead racks.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Given post #95 has a regulatory statement quoting 340 Standard Class seats per 6-car set I think you're right. It also depends what they do with the space currently occupied by the Buffet and part of the kitchen between the leading passenger door and the first class area (as is). Simple move would be to just gut and use as luggage stores; more complex would to get, add windows and maximise seating. My money would be on the former unless they want to provide large luggage stacks in each coach. New seating also allows them to try push under seat storage for small bags given the next to useless overhead racks.

Again FirstGroup need to be careful here. The Form P amendment (switching to Class 222s) application and rights stated in the business case that there would be a fixed buffet and kitchen.

1st Class was also committed, including new private areas for meeting facilities.

Standard Class was promised as 2+1 seating. Although it notes that "this may not be possible until new build rolling stock is available".

It specifically even states "will give a clear passenger alternative to the new Lumo Edinburgh service, which only conveys standard class passengers in 2+2 seating".

As I mentioned earlier, if one of the other competing open access operators makes a fuss out of this, I think First are in trouble. The rights were granted to Grand Union on this basis, and although they've been bought out by First, they don't seem to have told the ORR of their intention to do something considerably different.

If ORR would not otherwise have granted the rights for a business case involving the cheap and basic Lumo service, they will have real trouble.