tbtc
Veteran Member
Inevitable?
HS2 will have thousands of seats to fill every hour - you're not going to fill thousands of seats by just charging premium prices.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Midland Mainline Electrification. What trains?
- Thread starter 43074
- Start date
- Status
Inevitable?
HS2 will have thousands of seats to fill every hour - you're not going to fill thousands of seats by just charging premium prices.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The commuter IEP will be more akin to the Class 395 than anything else. Which doesn't stop it being the wrong train for the Cambridge/Kings lynn service anyway- I'd suggest a 110mph capable next generation Desiro or Electorstar/Aventra, possibly in six car formations, would be a more suitable unit for that service. Or, for that matter, stick with the 365s, which with refurbishment (wifi, aircon, ideally power sockets) would be as suitable as they are now for another 15-20 years (obviously with further refurbs along the line), with a bonus that Thameslink will release more of them.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
I agree. SNCF have realised this on their TGV, and recently launched 'Ouigo' - I suppose the easyjet of SNCF - to encourage leisure travellers to use the TGV, because it's alot cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Meridians were considered more suitable because they had 125 mph capability, faster accelleration and were generally much more comfortable than the Turbostars.
When Hull Trains first started, they were using Anglia Railways Turbostars which I suppose when they were introduced were the 'Rolls Royce' of the Turbostar range. But they did complement 86s and Marks 2s on peak time Norwich to London services where passengers had been used to a Train Manangers Office, Luxourious First Class, A Buffet Counter etc.
Last edited:
HS2 are rather in a cleft stick when it comes to prices. Charge more, and they will be accused of overcharging people (and probably not get very many passengers, look at HS1 for an example). Charge less, and people (myself for a start) will be up in arms about them undercutting existing operators, to the detriment of their services. For on-the-day tickets, I reckon they should charge exactly the same as whatever the ICWC or Chiltern operator charges, and most tickets should be inter-operable between routes - meaning you could turn up at Moor Street, buy a return to London and choose to come back via HS2 if you wanted. For advance, well, they can charge what they like.
That's also how I reckon HS1 domestic should operate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
AIUI, Cambridge/King's Lynn is going to be split off from Thameslink when the connection opens and grafted onto ICEC. It makes sense that it would end up with the same stock as used on the Leeds/York semi-fasts.
If we are to arrive at some sort of dividing line, an arbitary figure might be that if 50% of the passengers spend an hour or more on the train (numbers for illustrative purposes only) then that train requires full Intercity spec, meaning low-density seating, on-board catering and so on. The train also has to be Class 1 (unfortunately for those living by the Far North, etc). I'm not even sure where to start with collecting the figures for this, and it would undoubtedly let in a lot of additional services around London once run by NSE, and probably quite a few once run by RR or Scotrail. Operational convenience has to come into it somewhere, otherwise each individual route would have a small, dedicated pool of units just for that route (similar to Gresley's approach for building locos) so there has to be enough flexibility for some inter-operability. However, we can be certain that no MML stock is going to be turned out for the Highland Cheiftain, whereas EC stock just might (I'm now wondering what will happen if a King's Lynn unit fetches up at Inverness one day). Still, that certainly doesn't mean that the MML should use outer-suburban stock, ideally it should be similar to whatever ends up on Leeds/York/King's Lynn semi-fasts.
tbtc
Veteran Member
IF it weren't for the need to fit in a Corby service, you could run the MML as a simple pattern with
One of each stopping at Loughborough/ East Midlands Parkway.
(XC already provide a decent enough service from Derby to Sheffield, there's already a half hourly service from Nottingham to Sheffield, so no need for the Sheffield services to run slow via Derby/ Nottingham)
We should really move over to the HS2 thread, but my argument is that once you've paid to build HS2*, the operating costs of it should be pretty low - simple infrastructure, all electric, only a handful of stations to maintain, long trains... so very few staff required per passenger compared to conventional routes. That means there's scope to pack passengers in with cheap tickets.
(* - admittedly, this is the expensive part!)
- 2x London - Derby
- 2x London - Nottingham
- 2x London - Sheffield (via the Erewash route, maybe some extending to Leeds?)
One of each stopping at Loughborough/ East Midlands Parkway.
(XC already provide a decent enough service from Derby to Sheffield, there's already a half hourly service from Nottingham to Sheffield, so no need for the Sheffield services to run slow via Derby/ Nottingham)
We should really move over to the HS2 thread, but my argument is that once you've paid to build HS2*, the operating costs of it should be pretty low - simple infrastructure, all electric, only a handful of stations to maintain, long trains... so very few staff required per passenger compared to conventional routes. That means there's scope to pack passengers in with cheap tickets.
(* - admittedly, this is the expensive part!)
One way around it might be to move Corby over to Thameslink, but that presents a number of additional problems, especially when working it into the (already ambitious) Thameslink timetable in London. The longer the incoming route, the more the potential for delays. Another option might be to loop Corby services around via Oakham to Leicester, upping Leicester services to an effective 3tph.
Agreed, this should move, I'll leave that up to someone who knows how.
Qwerty133
Established Member
To extend on this I would have
London-derby calling at Leicester.
London to derby calling at wellingborough, Kettering, Leicester, loughborough, East Midlands parkway, long eaton and spondon
London to Nottingham calling at Leicester
London to Nottingham calling Luton or airport parkway, Bedford, wellinborough, Kettering, market harborough, Leicester, syston, sileby, Barrow upon soar, loughborough, East Midlands parkway and beeston
London to Sheffield calling at Leicester
London to Sheffield calling Kettering, Leicester, alfreton, and sheffield.
And use the 156s freed onthe derby to Crewe line with the dog boxes of that being used on a shuttle between Corby and Kettering
Class377/5
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 5,594
That's never been official policy but rumors/guess work because the King's Lynn was expected to get IEP which has now gone out the window.
King's Lynn will be apart of TSGN until at least 2022.
Is HS2 really going to cascade some Pendolinos away from ICWC? If so, shame it'd be too late to use them on the MML. PAD-Penzance maybe?
Are the Melton trains only for getting stock to/from depot then? I assumed it'd be like the GW branches, requiring some form of diesel haulage (or bi-mode) to maintain the beyond-wires services.
350s/377s are ok for stoppers, but if you think the fast mainline services can be reduced back to a 110mph top speed then something like Wessex Electrics could be made similar to Intercity standards, and allow for portion working if desirable. Outer suburban units are not appropriate for long-distance fast services.
There's an interesting letter in May's Modern Railways, advocating suitable guage clearance to avoid the need for TASS and allow additional routes to be used for tilting trains.
Now that the MML is being upgraded to 125mph, I'd say maybe. Previously I'd have said the IC225s should be retained on the ECML or cascaded to the GWML, and I still think they are more suited to those two routes than anywhere else, with the ECML probably being slightly prefrable for them. I really hope the 91s and mrk4s get to run in regular service at 140mph before their retirement, and both GWML and ECML are supposed to be getting ERTMS.
On the Great Western, not just west of Taunton but also Reading to Taunton via Westbury look like they might find tilt useful.
That's interesting, I've wondered once or twice in the past whether Intercity should have had some of the routes from Waterloo.
The 444s still have most of their doors in the right places, they certainly don't look like suburban units from the outside to me.
What exactly is the suituation now? Assuming the 'direct line' is the SWT service via Havant I think there are a mixture of slower and faster services. If so, my opinion is that the outer-suburban (class 450) units might be suitable on the slower trains, but all the faster runs should be 444s (or Wessex Electrics, but Southern have them now). Since there probably aren't enough 444s, I'd like to see more built which would cascade the 450s off faster Portsmouth services to Lymington and (after putting down some third rail or erecting some OHLE) the Southampton-Romsey/Salisbury services to release some 158s.
Sounds sensible, outer-suburban trains on stoppers, Intercity units to overtake them.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I don't think stopping the London services at such minor stations would work, not least because the ones south of Loughborough only have very short platforms. You've also left Nottingham with a less good service than today, as the slower train would almost certainly be overtaken by the faster one. Another snag is that the Erewash Valley isn't included in the electrification, although it would be an obvious infill if the Electric Spine is to be any use for freight.
There is always going to be a need for Nottingham-Leicester and Nottingham-Derby trains that can serve the smaller intermediate stations. With a timetable recast (separating the electrified legs) these could be EMUs. If Derby-Birmingham isn't electrified then it would be a good idea to extend the Birmingham-Nottingham as an hourly fast to Lincoln.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
I really don't think there is anything like enough demand in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands to fill thousands of seats each hour. I certainly think there will be demand for high speed travel to London but not at the levels that people are predicting. And so given that we already have a short fall of £3B HS2 will have to raise their prices. Some customers will happily pay the premium, some won't.
Qwerty133
Established Member
That's what SDO is for and I'd guess that the vast majority of passengers that use these stations are regulars they'd quickly get to know where on the train they need to alight.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Whilst you make some very valid points, its worth remembering that in terms of domestic travel London is the number one travel destination. Given that London is the biggest and most important city in the UK this is hardly surprising! Not only that but customers will always look to avoid changing trains where they can and so would sit on a class 170 because it wasn't worth the inconvenience of changing.
In terms of the class 170's, it wasn't just capacity that was the problem. Right from the start they were clearly not suited to intercity travel in the same way that class 350's are not. Central doors create draughts and serve no advantage where there are limited stops.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well guess again. This is an absolute nonsense. As an example if a family book cheap advanced tickets to Gatwick from Barrow they will have no choice as to where they sit in the train. How do you think they will feel if they have to cart two weeks of luggage from the back to the front of train through crowded aisles in order to get off at Barrow?
Last edited:
Is HS2 actually going to be much faster than current rail options for London-Leeds? It seems to take a rather indirect route to get there. My opinion is that HS2 phase one should be HS1 - Euston Cross - Birmingham (Central) - near Stafford - Crewe - Manchester (with the London-Birmingham section completed and openned first, but work carrying on without stopping after that). Most services wouldn't terminate at Birmingham but fan out at Crewe, rather than perpetuating the problem with the current WCML that Liverpool/Manchester/Chester etc. to London trains bypass Birmingham. Phase 2a would then be the link from the Manchester branch of HS2 to Wigan/Preston, though as with Birmingham I would have this as an extention from the Manchester station (which would no longer be a terminous) rather than bypassing Manchester. HS1 to Old Oak Common (assuming that the Euston Cross proposal still passes there) should be 4-track to allow a future HS3/4 to Bristol/Southampton.
The Leeds spur from Birmingham, if it has merit, would come later. Dropping it for a while could save some funds to help get the Euston - Birmingham - Manchester - Preston route done right.
Returning to fast services on the classic lines, is a regional-express/intercity 'Wessex Electric'-style version of an Electrostar/Aventra available? Or an electric version of a Meridian with more coaches and a more comfortable interior spec?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely 350s suffer the exact same problems, draghty central doors eating space out of the passenger area (creating more standing room, less seats or leg room at them, fewer tables), as class 170s?
As you say, a limited-stop train should have no need of central doors, hence why I think anything with 'Express' or 'Intercity' in the title ('regional express', 'transpennie express' etc.) really should have Intercity or 5-WES/158/444-style stock.
button_boxer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 1,270
I thought the Derby route was faster than the Erewash even though it's less direct, due to line speeds and fitting around the freight?
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Yes the line speed on the Derby route is much quicker.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry, you are quite right!
It's been a long day! I'll change the post!
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I used the MML and HT 170s when they were first introduces and found they were fantastic- the seats were comfortable on long journeys from South Yorkshire to London and even on the MML service (with regular stops) it wasn't too draughty when the dreaded central doors opened. Even better was use of the declassified (if a little worn by then) first class section after they moved to Central!
Admittedly it was May rather than December but I wouldn't say central doors are neccessarily all that bad. If a bit of thought is put into the layout of the passenger areas and vestibule doors are provided (these could be locked in the open position in the peak period) then there's no problem. Vestibule doors would be a welcome addition to 185s, as during the quiet(er) times in winter they'd help keep the longer-distance passengers warm. I'd much rather have end-door stock on the transpennine expresses but the dual-purpose nature of the route (both longer distance and short-hop passengers both being significant users) coupled with the intensive service means dwell times would be an issue. I'd have thought semi-fast services on the MML might have a similar conflict to resolve. No doubt someone will provide statistics to refute this though!
Admittedly it was May rather than December but I wouldn't say central doors are neccessarily all that bad. If a bit of thought is put into the layout of the passenger areas and vestibule doors are provided (these could be locked in the open position in the peak period) then there's no problem. Vestibule doors would be a welcome addition to 185s, as during the quiet(er) times in winter they'd help keep the longer-distance passengers warm. I'd much rather have end-door stock on the transpennine expresses but the dual-purpose nature of the route (both longer distance and short-hop passengers both being significant users) coupled with the intensive service means dwell times would be an issue. I'd have thought semi-fast services on the MML might have a similar conflict to resolve. No doubt someone will provide statistics to refute this though!
sheff'd victoria
Member
Could anyone tell my what time savings we would be looking at between a journey from Sheffield Midland to London by HST compaired to an Electric hauled service ?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Not without quite a bit of work.
sheff'd victoria
Member
It was just a general question, im trying to work out what time saving their are between a diesel train and an electric train, times are quicker I guss on the ECML with a Class 91 than a HST ?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,692
Yes you save 50 minutes of the days fastest time. But remember HS2 provides at least 2 hourly services that are this quick. Not 2 per day. SO actually you are saving about 1hour 10 minutes on 80% of daily Leeds London services. A time reduction of 45.6%.
So yes a major time reduction and i don't think HS2 without Leeds would have as much support, Yorkshire is campaigning very hard for it as is the East Midlands.
This is not for this thread though so please direct your questions to the purpose built threads.
eastwestdivide
Established Member
Back to the 170s - before they came in, the standard off-peak Midland service from St Pancras was more or less two trains an hour, so buying a small off-the-shelf design was a relatively low-risk way of doubling the service.
Do I remember the bosses at the time taking about "emptying the M1" or some such phrase?
With the 170s, the hourly service became:
- two HST fast to Leicester and onwards to either or Nottingham or Derby+Sheffield
- plus two stopping 170 to Leicester and onwards to Derby or Nottingham,
with cross-platform changing at Leicester between the stopping and fast services for the two basic routes.
Stations south of Leicester got a much-improved frequency, and stations Leicester and northwards got a faster service with fewer stops.
The 170s were also used on extra extended services to Burton and Barnsley (and Matlock?). Whatever happened to those services? The Barnsley ones at least weren't that attractive in journey time, compared to changing at Sheffield onto a fast.
I found the 170s pretty uncomfortable, cramped, noisy and hard seats compared to the HST, particularly when I found myself on 170 on a London-Sheffield Sunday all-stops service.
The increased service level was evidently a success, as the 222s were ordered, giving much more of an inter-city ambience than the 170s, some of which were only 2-car units.
So much for the history. After electrification, it seems to me that a variation on that original 170s timetable might simplify things for passengers, with maybe a mix of end-door quality intercity EMUs on the fast services and mid-door units like the 350s on the stoppers (splitting one at Kettering to provide a Corby service would be an option).
Do I remember the bosses at the time taking about "emptying the M1" or some such phrase?
With the 170s, the hourly service became:
- two HST fast to Leicester and onwards to either or Nottingham or Derby+Sheffield
- plus two stopping 170 to Leicester and onwards to Derby or Nottingham,
with cross-platform changing at Leicester between the stopping and fast services for the two basic routes.
Stations south of Leicester got a much-improved frequency, and stations Leicester and northwards got a faster service with fewer stops.
The 170s were also used on extra extended services to Burton and Barnsley (and Matlock?). Whatever happened to those services? The Barnsley ones at least weren't that attractive in journey time, compared to changing at Sheffield onto a fast.
I found the 170s pretty uncomfortable, cramped, noisy and hard seats compared to the HST, particularly when I found myself on 170 on a London-Sheffield Sunday all-stops service.
The increased service level was evidently a success, as the 222s were ordered, giving much more of an inter-city ambience than the 170s, some of which were only 2-car units.
So much for the history. After electrification, it seems to me that a variation on that original 170s timetable might simplify things for passengers, with maybe a mix of end-door quality intercity EMUs on the fast services and mid-door units like the 350s on the stoppers (splitting one at Kettering to provide a Corby service would be an option).
tbtc
Veteran Member
I don't remember that, but I do remember adverts in Sheffield describing MM as "The M1 by-pass"
I'm not quibbling with your history, but it should also be mentioned that National Express extended the 170s from two to three coaches when demand proved that there was a requirement for longer trains.
When three coach trains weren't enough, the plan was to build twenty four coach replacements capable of running at the same speed as the HSTs (the 222s), plus a further seven nine-coach 222s for a Leeds - London service.
The Leeds service wasn't allowed and the 222s were mixed into five/ seven coach rakes instead, which meant that the distinction between "fast and slow" ended, with HSTs and 222s doing either kind of service.
This makes me nostalgic for the days when National Express were the good guys (pre-NXEC etc).
I think that it is, but its a lot busier (esp the approach to Derby from the south - bottleneck), so I thought it'd be easier to route the Sheffield services up the Erewash route (plus you'd be able to give North Nottinghamshire a direct link to Leicester/ London)
eastwestdivide
Established Member
Thanks, forgot that, so their toe in the water (2-car) became a leg in the water (3-car) and then they dived in wholeheartedly (222s)! Didn't the new 170 centre coaches have some minor livery variation from the original?
And the on Erewash route - some timetable comparisons:
Looking at the 2006-7 timetable, when the Master Cutler ran direct through Toton, it was timetabled at 2h06 from Sheffield-London, stopping only at Chesterfield.
Other Sheff-London fasts then (Chesterfield-Derby-Leicester stops) had a timetabled time of 2h18, so taking off say 5 mins total for the Derby & Leicester stops, call it 2h13, or a 7-ish minute advantage for Toton?
Standard timing for St Pancras trains between Sheff-Chesterfield-Derby was 35 mins in 2006-7 versus 2013's 32 mins, so that 3 minute acceleration cuts that 7 min advantage to 4 mins.
Standard time for St Pancras trains between Derby-Leicester in 2006-7 was 24 mins, versus 22 mins today, cutting the advantage of the Toton route down to give-or-take 2 mins.
Have timings on the Erewash route been improved at all since 2006-7? I'd guess not by as much as the Derby route: Chesterfield-Langley Mill in both 2006-7 and 2013 is around 18 min.
So, Erewash/Toton could still be a viable route for a speedy Sheffield-London service if required (but that's a big if, and Derby loses out unless you do something additional).
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Erewash/Toton was re-signalled in 2008ish but I don't think the speeds changed much. The route via Derby benefitted from the Cross Country route modernisation and also some upgrades between Trent and Derby.
The other reason to pay more attention to the Erewash route might be to serve the HS2 station at Toton - though it needs to be connected to Derby and Nottingham more than Leicester and London.
The other reason to pay more attention to the Erewash route might be to serve the HS2 station at Toton - though it needs to be connected to Derby and Nottingham more than Leicester and London.
Good point. Sometimes I wonder if we really need two vestibules on a car, why not have one pre carriage like eurostar, with power doors over the Corridor connection, and maybe slightly wider doors to reduce dwell time. Like this:
As you can see the area has been reduced, leaving more usable space in the carriage, and if arranged correctly the loading times will be similar. Heck, with modern plug doors I'm not entirely sure the vestibule is needed.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Nice way of looking at it
13x 2 coach 170s became 17x 3 coach 170s
Its a shame that other orders couldn't have been gradually increased in capacity (imagine if Virgin had been able to add extra coaches to Voyagers incrementally...)
My "logic" was that splitting the services out into 2x Nottingham, 2x Derby and 2x Sheffield (via Erewash) would even out the loads better - am sure Derby passengers would prefer to board their trains without all us Yorkshire-bound passengers clogging them up!).
Derby to Chesterfield and Sheffield is covered by XC, so there'd not be any major loss of connections. It won't happen, of course - the Erewash route isn't scheduled to be electrified for a start.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
Sorry to be a pedant (someone has to I suppose), but they actually only ordered 10 centre cars in 2000. These had about 20 First Class seats in a more spacious arrangement than behind the driving cabs.
The Meridians that replaced them (the 222/0 4 car units) actually had less seats than the 3 car units did, so although ambience improved to IC standard, seating capacity decreased by a small amount.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think it was about 8 minutes diesel v. electric - there's only a certain amount that can be done on the MML infrastructure, so that would be about it.
Last edited:
tbtc
Veteran Member
- Status