East Midlands franchise prospectus

Jozhua · 25 Mar 2019

atraindriver said:
The 158s are not fine for anyone with luggage, for anyone with prams or for anyone with bikes, all of which were regularly seen on Lincolnshire local services when I worked them.

Things get really bad on the 158's at Manchester Piccadilly :/

RailUK Forums

bramling · 25 Mar 2019

InTheEastMids said:
This is being done. It's part of the MML Upgrade Plan Key Output 1a "MML bimode enabling".

I think the Private Eye piece up thread is a good example of counterfactual thinking, ie "what might have been", if different decisions had been taken.

Based on where we are in 2019, bimode is the way to go for the EMT London-Shef/Nottingham services,

If that's true, it just shows contempt for the customer experience. The 158s are fine but the rest are a 1980s experience, and would need a complete rebuild including re-powering to bring them up to scratch

In principle there’s nothing wrong with the “1980s experience” - it’s a train which goes and stops, the the 158s and 159s refurbished by Stagecoach under their two franchises show what can be done. I’d prefer to have a 1980s experience with ample capacity than a fully up-to-date experience crammed on a short train, probably with ironing board seats too.

Failed Unit · 25 Mar 2019

atraindriver said:
The 158s are not fine for anyone with luggage, for anyone with prams or for anyone with bikes, all of which were regularly seen on Lincolnshire local services when I worked them.

Trying to force those users into a 158 just because you prefer them is also showing contempt for the 'customer experience'*.

I'm not sure what units could provide a suitable 'experience' for all the differing passenger groups, mind, given that Lincolnshire's local services are a mix of inter-urban links, main-line/long-distance connectors, local commuter and local leisure use all at the same time.

* Is 'customer experience' a buzzphrase bingo win?

I think sadly any thoughts of customer experience on the railway is long gone. New trains are getting worse. The 15x is more comfortable the trains such as the 700s

Burgerstahl · 25 Mar 2019

Jozhua said:
Things get really bad on the 158's at Manchester Piccadilly :/

What type of train would things be better on ?

LowLevel · 25 Mar 2019

atraindriver said:
The 158s are not fine for anyone with luggage, for anyone with prams or for anyone with bikes, all of which were regularly seen on Lincolnshire local services when I worked them.

Trying to force those users into a 158 just because you prefer them is also showing contempt for the 'customer experience'*.

I'm not sure what units could provide a suitable 'experience' for all the differing passenger groups, mind, given that Lincolnshire's local services are a mix of inter-urban links, main-line/long-distance connectors, local commuter and local leisure use all at the same time.

* Is 'customer experience' a buzzphrase bingo win?

They fall down on luggage space because at the DfT's behest EMT shrunk the luggage racks to nothing. They could easily be put back if you're no longer only worrying about headline capacity on a couple of Liverpool services per day. There was a proposal to remove a row of seats the other summer to assist with this issue and the DfT said no.

They've now got a large wheelchair area (same rubbish bog) and you can with a bit of forethought safely fit 4 bikes on them with the removal of the phone booth dividing wall.

They're aluminium bodied 90 mph units. Fit them with new alternators so the auxiliaries work reliably and perhaps a new engine solution and they'd be quite acceptable trains for the East Midlands. The question is whether the cost would match up vs buying new trains outright.

I work class 158s as a guard very regularly indeed and while they're far from perfect they're not awful. They're at their worst in summer with the rubbish air con.

156s are actually just about ideal for the service - massive luggage capacity, room for bikes etc, but they fall down on being noisy, draughty and having a pre historic heating system.

Jozhua · 25 Mar 2019

LowLevel said:
They fall down on luggage space because at the DfT's behest EMT shrunk the luggage racks to nothing. They could easily be put back if you're no longer only worrying about headline capacity on a couple of Liverpool services per day. There was a proposal to remove a row of seats the other summer to assist with this issue and the DfT said no.

Honestly I feel like the people making these decisions need to actually travel on these routes before shooting down proposals. Then they would get a much better impression of the challenges involved in the operations of these trains. One could argue the lack of luggage space on Liverpool - Norwich is not only an inconvenience for guards/customers but also an outright safety issue. Despite the best efforts of staff, the doors are frequently blocked with luggage with no-where to go.

Freeing up more space for luggage would really help the route. It would allow for faster boarding which would help it's difficulties in staying on time and reduce bottlenecks on the Castlefield Corridor. It would help resolve the quite stressful pushing around of passengers trying to find a suitable place for their luggage before reaching their seats and reduce the need for people to use spare seats to store their luggage (a less efficient use of space than just adding some luggage racks...)

Burgerstahl said:
What type of train would things be better on ?

Probably just longer sets of 158's with improved luggage space.

InTheEastMids · 26 Mar 2019

atraindriver said:
Is 'customer experience' a buzzphrase bingo win?

You might say so, but the phrase suggests a mindset that is thinking holistically about what customers want from a service, from ease of buying tickets through to punctuality and seat comfort. My view is that most 15x units fall short of providing a good experience to travellers, because of internal condition, configuration, capacity and the intrinsic qualities of the vehicles (eg noise, heating/cooling etc).

bramling said:
I’d prefer to have a 1980s experience with ample capacity than a fully up-to-date experience crammed on a short train, probably with ironing board seats too.

This is a straw man type argument comparing what are 2 different ways in which customers are treated poorly. It's like asking whether I'd prefer to punched or kicked.

LowLevel said:
156s are actually just about ideal for the service - massive luggage capacity, room for bikes etc, but they fall down on being noisy, draughty and having a pre historic heating system.

I agreed with most of this message but particularly liked this bit because LowLevel nails the point by showing how a 156 gets it right in an operational sense whilst also giving customers a noisy, drafty time. DfT are not helping here because everything is thought about in purely operational terms like seat counts and punctuality.

whhistle · 26 Mar 2019

DanDaDriver said:
Most of them are barely 30, and quite a few are less than that.

You're right, the 153/156 are 30 years old this year.

But by the time they're replaced...
I don't think I use anything that is 30 years old.
I also don't think the units aged well, but I bet new units these days will still appear new at 30 years old.

Deafdoggie · 26 Mar 2019

bramling said:
In principle there’s nothing wrong with the “1980s experience” - it’s a train which goes and stops, the the 158s and 159s refurbished by Stagecoach under their two franchises show what can be done. I’d prefer to have a 1980s experience with ample capacity than a fully up-to-date experience crammed on a short train, probably with ironing board seats too.

whhistle said:
Or just "get off"?

Ah yes, the 1980's when we never had full trains and had to stand...oh wait a minute my rose-tinted glasses have fallen off.

yorksrob · 26 Mar 2019

On the subject of 80's units, I like the 158's and 156's. Assuming they forget their silly ideas about replacing the seats with ironing boards, they're as good a multiple unit experience you'll find on the network today.

londonmidland · 26 Mar 2019

I fear by the time the electrification is complete, will we actually have any electric/bi-mode trains to run on it?

If the DfT do not sort things out soon, then we’ll continue to see HST’s and 222’s being used with nothing utilising the overheads north of Bedford.

bunnahabhain · 26 Mar 2019

InTheEastMids said:
I agreed with most of this message but particularly liked this bit because LowLevel nails the point by showing how a 156 gets it right in an operational sense whilst also giving customers a noisy, drafty time. DfT are not helping here because everything is thought about in purely operational terms like seat counts and punctuality.

There was a proposal a few years back to fit the 156s with yaw dampers, more powerful engines and a better alternator seal up most of the windows and fit aircon or air cooling to make them effectively a Class 158. It's a shame in a way that didn't and won't happen, that said having seen how long it has taken the Class 769 to be ready maybe its a good thing!

I recall a proposal a few summers ago for 158s to run to Skegness throughout the summer instead of 156s, which was quickly kyboshed. Unfortunately all people had looked at is on paper you have 2-3 more seats in a 158 than a 156, and that was counting the fold down seats! The downside being you lose a vast amount of luggage space in the old parcels area on a 156 which is regularly filled to capacity in the summer.

Jozhua · 26 Mar 2019

bunnahabhain said:
There was a proposal a few years back to fit the 156s with yaw dampers, more powerful engines and a better alternator seal up most of the windows and fit aircon or air cooling to make them effectively a Class 158.

I was about to propose something like that! When the windows are closed the 156's don't offer to bad of a passenger experience but in the height of summer with the heat and windows wide open, things start to get a bit uncomfortable! That said, they're better than a 150/153 and certainly better than a pacer. I'd even argue on a legroom standpoint, I prefer them to a 170!

LowLevel · 26 Mar 2019

One thing that does appear to be confirmed is that EMT are managing improvements to the HST fleet including retention toilets and a customer information system that seems to confirm they'll be in traffic for a few more years at least.

duffield · 27 Mar 2019

LowLevel said:
One thing that does appear to be confirmed is that EMT are managing improvements to the HST fleet including retention toilets and a customer information system that seems to confirm they'll be in traffic for a few more years at least.

Yes, I saw a news article yesterday (I've now forgotten where) which says they will just need accessible toilets fitting (maybe just one first and one standard?) but the slam doors will be retained.

Question: In the time available before the end of the year, is it remotely feasable for this work to be done, assuming it's limited to two accessable toilets per set? And what if all the other toilets need rentention tanks?
Obviously it's a lot less work than doing the doors as well but that doesn't mean it can be done in time.

edwin_m · 27 Mar 2019

duffield said:
Yes, I saw a news article yesterday (I've now forgotten where) which says they will just need accessible toilets fitting (maybe just one first and one standard?) but the slam doors will be retained.

Question: In the time available before the end of the year, is it remotely feasable for this work to be done, assuming it's limited to two accessable toilets per set? And what if all the other toilets need rentention tanks?
Obviously it's a lot less work than doing the doors as well but that doesn't mean it can be done in time.

The HSTs already have a wheelchair toilet but I presume that's not to latest standards. Perhaps a derogation on the basis that it would be close enough with minor modifications?

For completeness there are a range of other bits and pieces needed for accessibility compliance, but none are as difficult as accessible toilets. I've always thought power doors aren't required for accessiblity as long as there are enough staff to work the slam doors.

yorksrob · 27 Mar 2019

LowLevel said:
One thing that does appear to be confirmed is that EMT are managing improvements to the HST fleet including retention toilets and a customer information system that seems to confirm they'll be in traffic for a few more years at least.

That's certainly excellent news !

DanDaDriver · 27 Mar 2019

yorksrob said:
That's certainly excellent news !

They’ve just upgraded one of their power cars to Electronic Fuel Injection. 43051 I think?

43096 · 27 Mar 2019

DanDaDriver said:
They’ve just upgraded one of their power cars to Electronic Fuel Injection. 43051 I think?

43076.

Can’t be 43051 as that is now 43251 with LNER.

kevjs · 27 Mar 2019

Burgerstahl said:
What type of train would things be better on ?

Something with wider doors would help - trying to get on from 13/14 with a couple of bags is a right paint and takes for ages as it's so cramped getting on the train. You get on the train and then have to climb over peoples suitcases too.

londonmidland · 27 Mar 2019

kevjs said:
Something with wider doors would help - trying to get on from 13/14 with a couple of bags is a right paint and takes for ages as it's so cramped getting on the train. You get on the train and then have to climb over peoples suitcases too.

I don’t want to steer off topic and bring up past discussions but dare I say the Nottingham to Liverpool section of the route goes over to TransPennine Express with permanent 6 car 185s working it?**

A 6 car 185 may have less seats than a 4 car 158 but they are certainly a lot better and faster with swallowing up large crowds and better for standing room too.

*Providing TPE gets their new stock with enough 185s to double up and work the route.
*Not too sure on all platform lengths however there are a few booked 6 car 185s which work the TPE South route.

yorksrob · 27 Mar 2019

DanDaDriver said:
They’ve just upgraded one of their power cars to Electronic Fuel Injection. 43051 I think?

Definitely sounds like a bit of a future then.

Jozhua · 27 Mar 2019

DanDaDriver said:
They’ve just upgraded one of their power cars to Electronic Fuel Injection.

Makes me wonder how much more life can be squeezed out of the HST's! The only thing I don't like about EMT's HST's are the seats. Whist they're not washboard, the legroom is lacking and there is nothing to support your head. A very uncomfortable experience for the taller passenger. A refit at some point in the future would be nice, if they are to remain in service for a while.

I wonder weather operationally the HST's having locomotives and trailing carriages makes them easier/cheaper to run from an operational standpoint. Are there any locomotives/carriages that are off lease that would be good replacements for the HST's?

atraindriver · 28 Mar 2019

InTheEastMids said:
[referring to "customer experience"]the phrase suggests a mindset that is thinking holistically about what customers want from a service, from ease of buying tickets through to punctuality and seat comfort.

Unfortunately my experience is that more often than not such phrases are not being used with any positive mindset; rather it is simply a mindless bleating of the latest buzzwords to justify imposing some plan without consideration or to justify blindly ignoring the realities of the business concerned.

Like many long-term staff in all sorts of industries, I tend to react negatively to buzzwords and buzzphrases from painful experience.

LowLevel said:
They've now got a large wheelchair area (same rubbish bog) and you can with a bit of forethought safely fit 4 bikes on them with the removal of the phone booth dividing wall.

The wheelchair area doesn't have the same pram capacity as a 156, though, and 4 bikes is piffle. I would regularly see 6 or 8 bikes turning up on certain workings around Lincoln; 4-if-wedged simply doesn't cut it in this day and age.

LowLevel said:
[158s] quite acceptable trains for the East Midlands.

I disagree. Nothing with the narrow doors of the 158 is acceptable for what are often combined commuter+leisure-user services. The instant anyone other than an able-bodied passenger unencumbered with luggage turns up, dwell times rocket. It only takes 3 prams trying to board or your 4 bikes and bang, you're late because EMT insists on 30 seconds being adequate at stations even with units that have 20 second door sequences.

Of the current fleet the 156 is operationally the best but, as you note, falls down in a number of ways. Ideally I think you'd be looking at a new build based on 150/170 bodyshells (the important element being the wide doors) but with a significantly better internal arrangement.

whhistle · 28 Mar 2019

Jozhua said:
I wonder weather operationally the HST's having locomotives and trailing carriages makes them easier/cheaper to run from an operational standpoint. Are there any locomotives/carriages that are off lease that would be good replacements for the HST's?

Class 60s.
There's a carp load of those around :P

whhistle · 28 Mar 2019

atraindriver said:
Ideally I think you'd be looking at a new build based on 150/170 bodyshells (the important element being the wide doors) but with a significantly better internal arrangement.

A bit like the 755s?

Jozhua · 28 Mar 2019

whhistle said:
Class 60s.
There's a carp load of those around :P

You mean a class 67? Maybe some 67's and some MK4's could be a slightly more modern solution, the EMT London services could do with some more extra capacity.

When will the company running the franchise and the details of said franchise be announced, thanks

atraindriver · 29 Mar 2019

whhistle said:
A bit like the 755s?

Right door width but they only have one door per carriage; realistically it needs to be two.

I've travelled on units with the one-wide-door-per-carriage design elsewhere in Europe, and even with the wider aisles permitted by Euro-gauge they're slow loading/unloading because the constricted movement is simply transferred from the door to the aisles, not helped by proportionally more people congregating on the platform at each doorway.

Such vehicle layouts are OK where all stops are a whole minute as a minimum or there's no interest in precise punctuality ("to the nearest minute" rather than our scheduled half-minutes), both being standard across much of Europe. In the UK where many routes still have station dwell times inherited from BR, 30 seconds at each station despite the planning rules requiring 45 seconds, layouts such as those merely exacerbate the problem of short dwell times.

Darandio · 29 Mar 2019

Is this the right thread for this? Cannot see whether it's already posted and whether it needs it's own thread or not.

Accessibility modifications planned for EMT HSTs

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/accessibility-modifications-planned-for-midland-hsts

Government has asked East Midlands Trains to undertake a procurement process on its behalf, regarding modification of High Speed Trains to meet the Passengers with Reduced Mobility (PRM) accessibility standards deadline of January 1 2020.

However, this is not expected to include automatic doors, and EMT understands that the Department for Transport continues to expect the next East Midlands franchise to use new trains.

The request was revealed in a letter from EMT Managing Director Jake Kelly to Lilian Greenwood MP, dated March 14.

In the letter, Kelly highlights that the current EMT deal is expected to end in August with a new franchise taking over. He states that the DfT “has asked us to undertake on their behalf a tender process and commence a programme which works towards addressing some of the HST fleets’ PRM non-compliance”.

He added that the enhancements would likely include making them more accessible for passengers, although he doesn’t say how.

Kelly also wrote that as part of the tender process, EMT has included an option to install sewage tanks (controlled emission toilets). But the work does not include the sliding doors because “these are not a specific requirement of PRM”. He said EMT expects to receive bids for the tender soon.

Work is needed on the HSTs following a change in heart from Government over electrification of the Midland Main Line north of Kettering and Corby.

In July 2017, Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling confirmed that bi-mode trains would be ordered and that wires would not be erected. He declared that these new trains must be introduced from April 30 2022. This decision created a shortfall in stock for EMT because the HSTs did not meet the PRM regulations.

sprinterguy · 29 Mar 2019

londonmidland said:
A 6 car 185 may have less seats than a 4 car 158 but they are certainly a lot better and faster with swallowing up large crowds and better for standing room too.

A pair of EMT 158s has 292 fixed seats, while a pair of TPE 185s in their current layout has 338 fixed seats (308 standard class, with an additional 12 tip-up seats). It should be possible to increase the latter to 364 fixed seats in an all standard class layout without losing the wheelchair area if it was desired.

East Midlands franchise prospectus

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member