Future for HST on MML

hooverboy · 19 Oct 2017

edwin_m said:
The 700s ought to serve St Albans as it's a relatively short distance into London with heavy loadings. If the Corby trains stopped there they would either be carrying fresh air further north or to busy leaving London in the peak for longer distance passengers to get on board.

Luton Airport Parkway could have some sort of Gatwick-style premium ticket, enforced at the barriers to the St Pancras high level platforms. The slower Nottingham and Sheffield trains could possibly also stop there to provide a service to and from the north which is useful to airport passengers. Other than that I'd not stop the slower trains south of Kettering, and ideally not stop the fast ones south of Market Harborough although that does require the slower Sheffield train to stop instead of the fast Nottingham.

As to rolling stock for the Corby trains, the 379s are an obvious possibility - not sure if 110mph rated but similar Electrostars are. 707s might be another option, or perhaps the 360s off GE and HEx?

the 700's already do.my point is a semi-fast service would be of much greater benefit. bedford to london on a stopper will take between 1 hour and 1 hour 20,depending on if it's all stations or not.a semi fast- bedford/luton/st albans /st pancras would be about 45 mins.EMT will get a good amount of capacity filled on such a train most of the day.

FWIW even at late night (even 1am)when I have travelled on thameslink there is a large amount of people departing at st albans,so I don't see it as being just a purely peak time commuter station.

the problem there is lack of platforms

RailUK Forums

Iskra · 19 Oct 2017

hooverboy said:
the 700's already do.my point is a semi-fast service would be of much greater benefit. bedford to london on a stopper will take between 1 hour and 1 hour 20,depending on if it's all stations or not.a semi fast- bedford/luton/st albans /st pancras would be about 45 mins.EMT will get a good amount of capacity filled on such a train most of the day.

Yes, but at the expense of introducing all the issues we see on the Great Western/TPE/XC with the blurring of long-distance services and commuter-runs, subsequently causing any capacity improvements to be swamped immediately for parts of the journey. Meanwhile commuter EMU's (of which there is no shortage) run emptier than they could be. This is off-putting to potentially more lucrative long-distance passengers, who are supposed to be EMT's market.

InTheEastMids · 20 Oct 2017

Roast Veg said:
The 379s would need the pantographs replacing they're also expensive to lease right now but that may not be the case for a future MML lease.

Exactly, market forces and leasing rates will fall if the market gets flooded with half decent EMUs. But it does depend how much appropriate stock will be available and when, because a lot of stuff that may be available soon would go down like a cup of cold sick, either lacking performance for the MML or not providing an appropriate customer experience. Or to put it another way, people here always seem to talk about 379s, suggesting we're not awash with other options?

Iskra said:
Yes, but at the expense of introducing all the issues we see on the Great Western/TPE/XC with the blurring of long-distance services and commuter-runs, subsequently causing any capacity improvements to be swamped immediately for parts of the journey. Meanwhile commuter EMU's (of which there is no shortage) run emptier than they could be. This is off-putting to potentially more lucrative long-distance passengers, who are supposed to be EMT's market.

But the MML south of Leicester already is largely a commuter railway (in the rush hour at least), and EMT are a lot faster from Beford than GTR. Are you suggesting that EMT should walk away from Beford commuter market, forego the revenue, and force customers into slower, less comfortable trains so people from Leicester can stretch out? Doesn't feel very customer-centric to me. The GTR services might leave Bedford empty, but presumably they are pretty full by the time they reach St Pancras, which means you'd just displace over crowding from EMT to GTR?

edwin_m · 20 Oct 2017

hooverboy said:
the 700's already do.my point is a semi-fast service would be of much greater benefit. bedford to london on a stopper will take between 1 hour and 1 hour 20,depending on if it's all stations or not.a semi fast- bedford/luton/st albans /st pancras would be about 45 mins.EMT will get a good amount of capacity filled on such a train most of the day.

FWIW even at late night (even 1am)when I have travelled on thameslink there is a large amount of people departing at st albans,so I don't see it as being just a purely peak time commuter station.

the problem there is lack of platforms

St Albans already has 4TPH non-stop to St Pancras, continuing across London, so a "semi-fast" also running non-stop to St Pancras and terminating there wouldn't offer much benefit.

mushroomchow · 20 Oct 2017

Domh245 said:
Given that the DfT Consultation has the corby services down as a "commuter" type service, the chance of it getting (comparatively) lethargic 90+mk3+dvts to operate it are slim to none, it'll almost certainly be a modern EMU, quite possibly one that will be going off-lease soon, so that it can utilise it's superior acceleration to not affect Thameslink. The 800s are the potential issue, there's no point getting bimodal trains if they can't do 125mph under most of the wiring that they would be using!

I find it funny that on one hand, the DfT are willing to make the Corby route a "commuter-style" service, yet on the other they steadfastly refused to transfer it to the Thameslink Franchise because "the stock is unsuitable for longer distances". It was dismissed with words to that effect by the delegate I spoke to at the Leicester event as a non-starter, despite seeming far more logical than it remaining as an outlier in the EM franchise following electrification.

They need to decide what they want from the route - is it going to be a commuter route, in which case Meridians and bi-mode IEPs will be wasted, or an intercity route more like what is seen now? If it's going to be somewhere between the two then a regional express unit like the 350s would be best suited to that sort of traffic, but whether any can be procured is another matter.

Ultimately, it will be the only EM Franchise route operating wholly "under the wires", so it seems daft for EMT or whoever the next operator is to potentially need a bespoke non-standard mini fleet just for that route. Unless they're thinking of using bi-mode trains, which would be completely wasted as it's looking increasingly likely that through services to Derby via. Harringworth and Melton will be withdrawn in the next franchise!

Mordac · 20 Oct 2017

mushroomchow said:
I find it funny that on one hand, the DfT are willing to make the Corby route a "commuter-style" service, yet on the other they steadfastly refused to transfer it to the Thameslink Franchise because "the stock is unsuitable for longer distances". It was dismissed with words to that effect by the delegate I spoke to at the Leicester event as a non-starter, despite seeming far more logical than it remaining as an outlier in the EM franchise following electrification.

They need to decide what they want from the route - is it going to be a commuter route, in which case Meridians and bi-mode IEPs will be wasted, or an intercity route more like what is seen now? If it's going to be somewhere between the two then a regional express unit like the 350s would be best suited to that sort of traffic, but whether any can be procured is another matter.

Ultimately, it will be the only EM Franchise route operating wholly "under the wires", so it seems daft for EMT or whoever the next operator is to potentially need a bespoke non-standard mini fleet just for that route. Unless they're thinking of using bi-mode trains, which would be completely wasted as it's looking increasingly likely that through services to Derby via. Harringworth and Melton will be withdrawn in the next franchise!

Abellio are getting rid of the 350/2s, so if the ROSCO can offer a decent price, refurbish them to get rid of the 3+2 seating and bob's your uncle!

ChiefPlanner · 20 Oct 2017

Mordac said:
Abellio are getting rid of the 350/2s, so if the ROSCO can offer a decent price, refurbish them to get rid of the 3+2 seating and bob's your uncle!

Fleet size would appear to about right , plus the Heathrow Connect vehicles (displaced by Crossrail) , could be added to the fleet. The latter were the Siemens prototypes. Many options , though I personally would prefer the 379's ...

edwin_m · 20 Oct 2017

The problem with integrating with the Thameslink core service would seem to be that high-density interiors as on the 700 stock are deemed unsuitable for anywhere further out than Bedford (and the Corby service with a better interior does provide a more confortable service for Bedford itself, assuming it stops there). In principle a 700 could be fitted with a lower-density interior, or perhaps a 707 could be so fitted and also have the ATO equipment for the Thameslink core. But the concern is that this interior layout would increase the dwell times and threaten the reliability of the 24TPH core service. Also the core is full so Corby services would have to be extensions of Bedford services and total capacity would be less.

Hence the intention is to run the Corby services into the high level platforms at St Pancras. Either the EMT successor or Thameslink could do this of course, but the Corby service would be a non-standard micro-fleet for either.

Mordac · 20 Oct 2017

ChiefPlanner said:
Fleet size would appear to about right , plus the Heathrow Connect vehicles (displaced by Crossrail) , could be added to the fleet. The latter were the Siemens prototypes. Many options , though I personally would prefer the 379's ...

I forgot about it earlier, but the 350/2s could also receive the 110mph mods the /1s and /3s got, enabling them to possibly use the fast lines and get out of the way of expresses faster.

cj_1985 · 20 Oct 2017

Mordac said:
I forgot about it earlier, but the 350/2s could also receive the 110mph mods the /1s and /3s got, enabling them to possibly use the fast lines and get out of the way of expresses faster.

I think it's been posted in another thread on here, that the 350/2s are being modified for 110mph running

ashworth · 20 Oct 2017

edwin_m said:
The problem with integrating with the Thameslink core service would seem to be that high-density interiors as on the 700 stock are deemed unsuitable for anywhere further out than Bedford (and the Corby service with a better interior does provide a more confortable service for Bedford itself, assuming it stops there). In principle a 700 could be fitted with a lower-density interior, or perhaps a 707 could be so fitted and also have the ATO equipment for the Thameslink core.

Why is a 700 deemed unsuitable for anywhere further out than Bedford when they are not unsuitable in the other direction down to Brighton. I agree that they are not as comfortable as the current 222’s but if Brighton can have them why not Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby?

Peter Mugridge · 20 Oct 2017

ashworth said:
Why is a 700 deemed unsuitable for anywhere further out than Bedford when they are not unsuitable in the other direction down to Brighton. I agree that they are not as comfortable as the current 222’s but if Brighton can have them why not Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby?

Bear in mind that Bedford is as far out from London as Brighton is.

sd0733 · 20 Oct 2017

43096 said:
You mean the more modern engine that uses more fuel, more oil and goes less time between overhauls than the VP?

If that's the case then no definitely not a good idea!

ashworth · 21 Oct 2017

Peter Mugridge said:
Bear in mind that Bedford is as far out from London as Brighton is.

I hadn’t realised that because I only really ever travel through Bedford on EMT services to Nottingham where journey times even with a stop at Luton are little more than half that from London to Brighton.
However, shouldn’t journey time be taken into consideration as well as distance? Current journey times from St Pancras right out to Kettering and Corby are little more than journey times from London Bridge to Brighton and considerably less than St. Pancras to Brighton.

AM9 · 21 Oct 2017

ashworth said:
I hadn’t realised that because I only really ever travel through Bedford on EMT services to Nottingham where journey times even with a stop at Luton are little more than half that from London to Brighton.
However, shouldn’t journey time be taken into consideration as well as distance? Current journey times from St Pancras right out to Kettering and Corby are little more than journey times from London Bridge to Brighton and considerably less than St. Pancras to Brighton.

You are right. Distance is irrelevant to a passenger on the train. The average passenger journey time and passenger capacity are the primary determining factors for seating, access and amenity provision.

edwin_m · 21 Oct 2017

Brighton passengers have the alternative of frequent services operated by more comfortable Southern units. Bedford itself will probably have the a half-hourly call by a more comfortable EMU on the Corby service so Flitwick is the furthest MML station served only by 700s.

Failed Unit · 21 Oct 2017

True on MML. But the 700s will be the only unit most of the times for distances further away then Bedford.

Huntingdon in the north springs to mind. ( could say Peterborough but it was East Coast of course)

Hairy Bear · 21 Oct 2017

No plastic Doodlebugs in our station...thank you !.

Domh245 · 21 Oct 2017

Hairy Bear said:
No plastic Doodlebugs in our station...thank you !.

View attachment 35915

If I'm reading that correctly, 700s are forbidden from St Pancras High Level? That can't be right then (or at least a recent development) as they've gotten in there before!

richieb1971 · 21 Oct 2017

I went to London last week on a 700 from bedford. Was not the best I must say. The biggest problem was the amount of stops which included West Hampstead of all places. Took a 222 on the way home, much much better. I can see why the complaints are flooding in from Bedford. I believe a service that just includes Flitwick, Luton, St Albans would be much better if one of those ran once an hour via a 700. Or any combination of a 4 station stop. The difference between a non stop 222 (or stopping at LAP) and a 700 stopper is too great. You do need some middle ground.

hooverboy · 21 Oct 2017

edwin_m said:
Brighton passengers have the alternative of frequent services operated by more comfortable Southern units. Bedford itself will probably have the a half-hourly call by a more comfortable EMU on the Corby service so Flitwick is the furthest MML station served only by 700s.

well apparently there is some underground magic in them there tunnels near st P.not sure how much credence there is to the rumours, but i hear that KX thru/metro services can also come through the lower level st P platform shortly.Not utilised yet but coming online soon.

if thameslink could do that though the b*****cks that is herne hill/loughborough jn etc etc it would save 1/2 hour on a bedford-brighton run.

hooverboy · 21 Oct 2017

richieb1971 said:
I went to London last week on a 700 from bedford. Was not the best I must say. The biggest problem was the amount of stops which included West Hampstead of all places. Took a 222 on the way home, much much better. I can see why the complaints are flooding in from Bedford. I believe a service that just includes Flitwick, Luton, St Albans would be much better if one of those ran once an hour via a 700. Or any combination of a 4 station stop. The difference between a non stop 222 (or stopping at LAP) and a 700 stopper is too great. You do need some middle ground.

inclined to agree. the so called semi fast is not semi fast at all.basically from st albans to bedford it's an all station stopper...from st P to st albans might stop at west hampstead.

I would like to see proper semi fast bedford/luton/st albans/st P. would fit with corby diagram as each station is about 10-15 mile equidistant.

apparently the proposal to make bedFord-corby a thameslink diagram has gone down like a lead balloon.Passengers seem not to like to 700's all that much....so it's got to be either loco+mk3/4 or VERY nicely outfitted 350's to keep people sweet i think.

43096 · 21 Oct 2017

hooverboy said:
so it's got to be either loco+mk3/4 or VERY nicely outfitted 350's to keep people sweet i think.

It's not going to be loco-hauled. I'd think a shoot-out between the 350/2s and the 379s, and it may well depend on which ROSCO offers the better deal, as both fleets are reputed to be expensive to lease on their current terms.

MML · 21 Oct 2017

8-car or 12-car formations operating Corby-Kettering-Wellingborough-Bedford-Luton-Luton Airport Parkway-St Pancras would provide the following service improvements:
(1) more frequent half-hourly service from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough.
(2) faster half-hourly service from Bedford and Luton than are operated by Thameslink services which currently operate all stations from Bedford to St Albans.
(3) improved non-stop service between Luton Airport Parkway and St Pancras, a key requirement from Luton Airport in their aim to increase use of public transport to London.
(4) freeing capacity on existing Thameslink services for those travelling from Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Harpenden and St Albans.
(5) freeing capacity on existing diesel EMT services to the Midlands and the North.

If all services were 12-car formations, how many 4-car units would be required to operate the half-hour service ?
If off-peak services were 8-car formations, what fleet size would be required ?
Just trying to work out whether enough c350 or c379 units would become available. Seating would need to be low-density 2+2, with relatively comfy but upright seats rather than the ironing board seats of the c700's, if this service is to be marketed as a superior product offering for longer distance services.

43096 · 21 Oct 2017

MML said:
If all services were 12-car formations, how many 4-car units would be required to operate the half-hour service ?
If off-peak services were 8-car formations, what fleet size would be required ?
Just trying to work out whether enough c350 or c379 units would become available. Seating would need to be low-density 2+2, with relatively comfy but upright seats rather than the ironing board seats of the c700's, if this service is to be marketed as a superior product offering for longer distance services.

Looking at the current timetable, it's around 1hr10mins St. Pancras to Corby. Now a 2hr 30min round trip, whilst feasible, leaves no time for delays, so more realistically it's a 3hr round trip. That needs 6 trains, each of 3 units if they are to be 12-car, so 18 units needed. You'd need 20 or 21 sets including maintenance allocation.

edwin_m · 21 Oct 2017

MML said:
If all services were 12-car formations, how many 4-car units would be required to operate the half-hour service ?
If off-peak services were 8-car formations, what fleet size would be required ?

London to Corby is about 1hr 10min but might be slightly slower with the extra stops. Assume a train is ready to leave Corby about 1hr30min after it leaves London and it gets back to London ready to leave 3hr after it previously left. That means six trains are needed in service, so 18 units if all 12-car. Add some spares for maintenance and a fleet of 20 or 21 units would do it.

The second question is harder because it depends how long the peak is when 12-car units are needed, and how easy it is to couple and uncouple sets at the optimum times (probably pretty difficult, as there is no depot or siding space at either St Pancras or Corby so would have to attach/detach en route or run a portion empty to somewhere it could stable). So I doubt running 8-car in the off-peak would save many units.

Edit: 43096 beat me to it, but I'm glad to see we agree!

The Ham · 22 Oct 2017

43096 said:
Looking at the current timetable, it's around 1hr10mins St. Pancras to Corby. Now a 2hr 30min round trip, whilst feasible, leaves no time for delays, so more realistically it's a 3hr round trip. That needs 6 trains, each of 3 units if they are to be 12-car, so 18 units needed. You'd need 20 or 21 sets including maintenance allocation.

With 36 * 350/2's available that's more than enough to cover what's needed. Which could cause a bit of a problem, in that unless EMT can find a use for the other 15 units then there's a potential argument that the ROSCO could be inclined to want to charge to cover the storage of the rest of the fleet.

MML · 22 Oct 2017

30 * 379 which would come off-lease from GA.
or
10 * 350/3 + 10 * 350/4 from LM and TPE could become the alternative options, subject to ROSCO ownership I suppose.

D365 · 22 Oct 2017

or
21 x 360/1

Needless to say there's tons of options.

43096 · 22 Oct 2017

MML said:
30 * 379 which would come off-lease from GA.
or
10 * 350/3 + 10 * 350/4 from LM and TPE could become the alternative options, subject to ROSCO ownership I suppose.

In terms of numbers 21 x 360/1 is a perfect fit, but the lack of gangways is an issue.

Future for HST on MML

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation