East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

222001 said:

I'm not sure it would work as 185s can't do HST speeds, and there are quite a few HST speed differentials even below 100mph.

Click to expand...

And they can't do 125mph, so will loose time south of Wellingborough, and between Leicester and East Midlands Parkway

cactustwirly said:

You're reading too much! The HSTs will still have to get to Leeds for maintenance

Click to expand...

yorksrob said:

Or it could be that the HST's zoom off from St Pancras and Nottingham to Leeds ECS at the end of the day, while Sheffield passengers are hearded onto a 180 immediately following and asked to keep their fingers crossed for the journey.

Click to expand...

The HSTs will still go to Leeds for maintenance but some will be replaced in the short term and all of them by 2022 (assuming we believe the timescales). There's no reason why either replacement fleet should be maintained at Leeds and quite a few reasons to maintain them closer to the core route. So Leeds extensions will have to be justified on the revenue they bring in versus the full operating costs whereas at present the extra operating cost is small because the train runs anyway. Another factor is that the Leeds HSTs plug some gaps from Sheffield to Nottingham in the morning and back in the evening, reducing the need for Liverpool trains and associated ECS at either end of the day. But with the Liverpools now resourced by TPE or Northern they will start their day at Sheffield or further west so these gaps will be filled automatically, possibly also taking up the current HST paths through Chesterfield.

The DfT talks about "limited extension" of London-Sheffield service to Leeds and interestingly doesn't make any commitment to run the "brand-new 125mph trains" to Leeds, only to York.

As I’ve pointed out before any London - Leeds service is a bonus, because the ITT did not ask for any at all...

It looks like Willington is about to finally get a TVM.

swt_passenger said:

As I’ve pointed out before any London - Leeds service is a bonus, because the ITT did not ask for any at all...

Click to expand...

Best left to LNER via the ECML I think.

cactustwirly said:

And they can't do 125mph, so will loose time south of Wellingborough, and between Leicester and East Midlands Parkway

Click to expand...

Sure, but the question is whether putting 185s on Corby duties (i.e. not between Leicester and East Midlands Parkway) would free up 222s to replace a few HSTs on the main line next May. Yes, south of Wellingborough they may lose time, but would it be too much?

The only other explanation I can see is 180s, and given recent events I am honestly doubtful that Abellio have plumped for them.

Doctor Fegg said:

Sure, but the question is whether putting 185s on Corby duties (i.e. not between Leicester and East Midlands Parkway) would free up 222s to replace a few HSTs on the main line next May. Yes, south of Wellingborough they may lose time, but would it be too much?

The only other explanation I can see is 180s, and given recent events I am honestly doubtful that Abellio have plumped for them.

Click to expand...

It would be quite a lot, as that section is mostly 125mph linespeed!

Here's some thoughts:

Could Hinckley change to a West Mids station?
With the talk of West Mids wanting to run the local Birmingham to Leicester stopper (interestingly EMT banned from Birmingham New Street) and something in the news a few years back about Hinckley wanting to come under Warwickshire county council and thus extending the nTrain boundary, now as both companies are Abellio would this make it an easy change of SFO?

Would the relationships built up with Stadler/empty building slots mean Class 755 could be an option? Or would Hitachi with their empty order books offer yet more IETs on the cheap?

Hey so long as the operated stations have more information! Nottingham when I was there, there was very limited train information. I would assume the Grimsby-Nottingham service goes ahead still?

A few observations.

HSTs; sorry, can't provide a link to it, but in the last few days I've seen reference to correspondance between Jake Kelly at EMT and Lillian Greenwood in which the former claims that EMT has undertaken a tendering exercise on behalf of the DfT to have work carried out on HSTs to make them more suitable for operation after the end of this year. It doesn't include replacement of manual doors with power operated ones.

New trains for MML; the DfT's ITT specifically stated in clause 5.9.4 (page 81) that bidders had to offer bi-mode trains for the operation of inter-city services on the MML between London St
Pancras International and Nottingham/Sheffield which are capable of operating “Class 222
timed services from the as bid TSR1 and TSR2 on the Midland Main Line with no detriment to
immediate and end to end journey times”. I've checked the Sectional Appendix for the MML again this morning, and there are still significant stretches with differential speed restrictions for HSTs, and as the Hitachi bi-modes are NOT listed amongst the classes which can operate at these higher speeds, I believe that the Hitachi trains are unable to meet this requirement of the ITT; moreover, I believe that the DfT recognised this, as sub-clause 5.9.5 a) of the ITT requires a demonstrator train suitable for track testing to be delivered by 31 December 2021, with an introduction into service date of 30 April 2022. The Sectional Appendix has just been updated, and therefore the situation regarding the Hitachi bi-modes is current.

Corby services and May 2020 HST replacements; electric services are shown as being introduced from December 2020, and therefore it is unlikely that any Meridians will be available by May 2020; therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that off-lease class 180s will be the only suitable trains available to replace HSTs.

Extension of some services northwards to Leeds; it will be interesting to see when these are as - unless there is a need to transfer trains to that area (or Crofton) for maintenace - there no longer seems to be a need to operate north of Sheffield (unless the original Midland Mainline idea of serving Barnsley is being resurected!). However, there have been press reports in the past that Leicester/Leicestershire local authorities have wanted improved rail connectivity between Leicester and Leeds, and so this might be a response to some pressure from them.

Regional services; the Railway Gazette reports that the DfT has stated that Abellio will replace the ENTIRE regional fleet with faster, more modern, refurbished trains which will provide a higher speed, better connected, regional timetable. The latter precludes the use of class 185s as they are unable to take advantage of the many enhanced speed restrictions in the area served by East Midlands Railway. Moreover, does it not imply that the class 158s will go? Replacements? How many 170s are coming off lease? Will the present trains be replaced by 175s from Wales or have they been promised elsewhere?

Services; note no mention of Robin Hood line services being extended over the old LD&ECR eastwards from Shirebrook; I guess this means that it's not going to happen.

However, what has been published thus far is silent on one of the other key requirements of the ITT, namely providing better cross-Nottingham connections; moreover, the existing Matlock - Newark service is just shown as Matlock - Nottingham, and the Leicester - Lincoln is just shown as Leicester - Nottingham. Therefore, I guess that once the standstill period is over and more information is made available, we will see that some of the services presently shown as terminating in Nottingham will be merged.

The ITT specifically asked for proposals for splitting the Liverpool - Norwich service and enhancing the Derby - Crewe line, so its not surprising that they have been mentioned in the press release, but it does seem strange that no mention has been made on this requirement.

swt_passenger said:

As I’ve pointed out before any London - Leeds service is a bonus, because the ITT did not ask for any at all...

Click to expand...

Etches Park is also full. So it’s either find a new depot, extend Etches Park, or keep using Neville Hill I guess?

222001 said:

Etches Park is also full. So it’s either find a new depot, extend Etches Park, or keep using Neville Hill I guess?

Click to expand...

Possibly. I wouldn’t like to predict what may happen, as there’s a tendency for replacement fleets to be manufacturer maintained.

222001 said:

Etches Park is also full. So it’s either find a new depot, extend Etches Park, or keep using Neville Hill I guess?

Click to expand...

They could move the local maintenace to Eastcroft, to free up space at Etches for the intercity fleet.
Or use Neville Hill, Doncaster Carr, or Crofton.
Doncaster Carr, is pretty much full with TPE, HT and LNER, Crofton is incompetent, therefore Neville Hill is the most logical choice.

One of the bidders (I can’t remember which) was looking at stabling some units overnight at Barrow Hill for the early morning Sheffield - London’s. Freeing up some roads at EP.

cactustwirly said:

They could move the local maintenace to Eastcroft, to free up space at Etches for the intercity fleet.
Or use Neville Hill, Doncaster Carr, or Crofton.
Doncaster Carr, is pretty much full with TPE, HT and LNER, Crofton is incompetent, therefore Neville Hill is the most logical choice.

Click to expand...

As has already been stated do not discount the construction of a new depot facility to maintain the new fleet. Plus I wouldn't rule Crofton out of contention in such a blasé fashion. Bombardier are one of those offering a product that's likely to meet the required specification of being a bi-mode and Crofton is a Bombardier depot. I would certainly advise against clinging to Neville Hill as the base for part of the new EMR intercity fleet. I would suggest that a new depot facility from scratch to act as home base for the whole lot is just as likely as keeping the fleet spread out over legacy depots.

Bletchleyite said:

The problem is that Northern needs such a capacity uplift (unlike the other regional TOCs) that it'll take a while for new kit to filter through. A seat in a 150 is better than no seat.

Click to expand...

Thing is, for many people, a seat in a car is better than a seat on a 150

Aictos said:

That is your opinion but you're comparing apples and pears eg comparing the 1st Class of a EMT service to Standard Class so of course they're going to be different, a much more fairer assessment would be to compare 1st Class on a EMT HST with 1st on a GWR/LNER/XC HST for example or even compare Standard Class on a EMT HST with Standard Class on a GWR/LNER/XC HST etc...

Who's to say that new rolling stock won't be a suitable replacement for the HSTs which although are a good design deserve to be retired after decades of service, people moaned about the Class 80Xs saying there be less legroom but that was proven to be utter twaddle.



The issue with the Hull Trains Class 180s is not the trains themselves but rather with the suspect maintenance that Crofton carry out on them, as has been said before Old Oak Common had them performing well as they were used to the quirks and knew how to get the best out of the units but since moving to Crofton that knowledge has been lost.

To give a analogy, when the Class 700s started working on the GN there was various issues as the drivers were still getting used to them compared to on the TL where the drivers having spent longer with them were far more used to them and knew various tricks to get the best out of them, the same applies for the maintenance of the Class 180s.

As to assuming that the Class 180s are less comfortable then again that is your own opinion and not a balanced one, I've used the Class 180s a number of times with Hull Trains, Grand Central and First Great Western yet to have a uncomfortable journey especially as there is nothing that a decent maintenance team can't do with them.

Click to expand...

In terms of comfort, yes it is a personal opinion, however I am comparing all accommodation I've used, including 1st class old and new.

However the key point about the 180's is their lack of reliability, and I know Crofton are painted as the source of all woe, however these units were problematic when new and even GC probably only manage to get as good service as they do by having a large fleet of them. This is something that will not be possible with the Hull trains micro-fleet.

Bletchleyite said:

I wouldn't mind if there was something suitable (e.g. 68+Mk4) that wasn't complete rubbish like Class 180s. There is only one thing Class 180s are suitable for, and that is turning into razor blades and beer cans.

At least you'll get some - a lot of - Delay Repay.

Click to expand...

In terms of the 180's, it seems unlikely that someone will pay for a full mechanical refurb to cover the gap between May and 2020, so unless their maintenance team are miracle workers, I can't see reliability being massively improved.

edwin_m said:

The HSTs will still go to Leeds for maintenance but some will be replaced in the short term and all of them by 2022 (assuming we believe the timescales). There's no reason why either replacement fleet should be maintained at Leeds and quite a few reasons to maintain them closer to the core route. So Leeds extensions will have to be justified on the revenue they bring in versus the full operating costs whereas at present the extra operating cost is small because the train runs anyway. Another factor is that the Leeds HSTs plug some gaps from Sheffield to Nottingham in the morning and back in the evening, reducing the need for Liverpool trains and associated ECS at either end of the day. But with the Liverpools now resourced by TPE or Northern they will start their day at Sheffield or further west so these gaps will be filled automatically, possibly also taking up the current HST paths through Chesterfield.

The DfT talks about "limited extension" of London-Sheffield service to Leeds and interestingly doesn't make any commitment to run the "brand-new 125mph trains" to Leeds, only to York.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens to Leeds services with the new trains. They were getting a lot of Sheffield - Leeds passengers during the strikes.

DanDaDriver said:

One of the bidders (I can’t remember which) was looking at stabling some units overnight at Barrow Hill for the early morning Sheffield - London’s. Freeing up some roads at EP.

Click to expand...

There's probably an obvious answer to this, but what about stabling some units in the central tracks at Sheffield station like Northern do and having an agreement to share the light maintenance facilities to the south of the station? Obviously the TMD staff would need some additional training on unit differences and handling catering water but I can't forsee any drastic adjustments being needed.

ainsworth74 said:

As has already been stated do not discount the construction of a new depot facility to maintain the new fleet. Plus I wouldn't rule Crofton out of contention in such a blasé fashion. Bombardier are one of those offering a product that's likely to meet the required specification of being a bi-mode and Crofton is a Bombardier depot. I would certainly advise against clinging to Neville Hill as the base for part of the new EMR intercity fleet. I would suggest that a new depot facility from scratch to act as home base for the whole lot is just as likely as keeping the fleet spread out over legacy depots.

Click to expand...

The order is unlikely to be Bombardier, since the Aventras are heavily delayed, more likely to be Stadler, CAF, or maybe Siemens (hopefully!)
Obviously Neville Hill is an EMT depot so it makes sense to maintain the stock there, and space will be freed up by the departure of LNER

grumpyoldman01 said:

the Railway Gazette reports that the DfT has stated that Abellio will replace the ENTIRE regional fleet with faster, more modern, refurbished trains which will provide a higher speed, better connected, regional timetable. The latter precludes the use of class 185s as they are unable to take advantage of the many enhanced speed restrictions in the area served by East Midlands Railway. Moreover, does it not imply that the class 158s will go? Replacements?

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought Railway Gazette had just misread the DfT statement at first, but the Rail Minister has just very clearly called it a complete fleet replacement in the House of Commons.

"We will see an entirely new fleet of trains—a full replacement fleet—come into service. Inter-city services will receive new bi-mode trains, and regional services will receive new diesel trains."

Click to expand...

Good read below for the transcript: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...F-914B-96F43098DC84/EastMidlandsRailFranchise

Edit: To add further to the intrigue, the Daily Telegraph is now reporting that Arriva submitted a non-compliant bid as well- meaning Abellio won by default!

"The Telegraph can reveal that Arriva, the rail and bus operator backed by German behemoth Deutsche Bahn, submitted a “non-compliant” bid for the East Midlands rail network and was excluded from the process."

Click to expand...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...squalified-rail-franchise-bids-pensions-risk/

What is the point of having a competition from the private sector if we give it to someone by default!

YorkshireBear said:

What is the point of having a competition from the private sector if we give it to someone by default!

Click to expand...

Especially when that company has a proven track record of being garbage. If we want a garbage state owned company to run the railways, at least make it our own garbage state owned company instead of the one from Dutch Railways. No wonder they all ride bikes over there!

From some of the comments, there's a suggestion that the Arriva bid was also non-compliant; anyone know if this is correct?

StaffsWCML said:

Especially when that company has a proven track record of being garbage. If we want a garbage state owned company to run the railways, at least make it our own garbage state owned company instead of the one from Dutch Railways. No wonder they all ride bikes over there!

Click to expand...

Quite a statement there!
From personal experience, Abellio are one of the better operators out there, the GA Norwich intercity service, seems a lot better than the current EMT intercity services, so I'm pleased they won!
For reference, NS are a very competent operator.

cactustwirly said:

Quite a statement there!
From personal experience, Abellio are one of the better operators out there, the GA Norwich intercity service, seems a lot better than the current EMT intercity services, so I'm pleased they won!
For reference, NS are a very competent operator.

Click to expand...

I cant say my experience of them is entirely thrilling. Scot rail are awful, London North-western pretty awful, West Midlands Trains pretty awful. They have a lot of work to do.

yorksrob said:

Then let them operate under a derogation until the new trains are ready.

Click to expand...

Why?

If the industry has trains spare which are more accessible to those people who have the misfortune to be less able every effort should me made to reduce the non-compliance not just keep derogations going for no apparent reason other than someone liking HSTs?

Bizarre...

Aictos said:

To give a analogy, when the Class 700s started working on the GN there was various issues as the drivers were still getting used to them compared to on the TL where the drivers having spent longer with them were far more used to them and knew various tricks to get the best out of them, the same applies for the maintenance of the Class 180s.

Click to expand...

Bad choice of units to compare. The 700s are worse than than the 180s according to their MTIN. Granted the 180s are getting worse and the 700s are improving but the drivers are not the issue with the 700s. They are just unreliable and taking a long long time to climb up the bathtub. (I hope they haven’t reached the top)

Hopefully we will not see any 180 EMT. Personally I can’t see it.

Be interesting what replaces the 153 along with storage. The increased frequency of the routes and the fact the minimum train length will be 2 cars now could make Lincoln cosy overnight.

talltim said:

Thing is, for many people, a seat in a car is better than a seat on a 150

Click to expand...

I doubt many would choose driving into Manchester or Leeds at peak times to avoid riding in a nicely tarted-up Class 150. Pacers I'll give you, but the thing that genuinely scares people to the car is the disgraceful overcrowding, and to resolve that it simply isn't possible to get rid of the 150s yet.

Most people who say they go by car to avoid Class 150s are the people who would go by car anyway and are just making excuses for their choice, and wouldn't know what the Class 150 interior was like if one ran them over.

NoOnesFool said:

There's probably an obvious answer to this, but what about stabling some units in the central tracks at Sheffield station like Northern do and having an agreement to share the light maintenance facilities to the south of the station? Obviously the TMD staff would need some additional training on unit differences and handling catering water but I can't forsee any drastic adjustments being needed.

Click to expand...

Sheffield is pretty much full overnight with around twenty-two units expected there every day. Plus as far as I'm aware the "light" maintenance truly is light in that it's the sort of stuff that could be done by a fitter in a station. So a good idea but I'm not sure it's really practical.

cactustwirly said:

The order is unlikely to be Bombardier, since the Aventras are heavily delayed, more likely to be Stadler, CAF, or maybe Siemens (hopefully!)
Obviously Neville Hill is an EMT depot so it makes sense to maintain the stock there, and space will be freed up by the departure of LNER

Click to expand...

The only manufacturers that have products currently for an intercity bi-mode are Hitachi and Bombardier. Hitachi have a product that's getting its various teething troubles out of the way as we speak and by 2022 they will no doubt be a proven product. Bombardier have a product based on an existing design that they could start producing (and are they that behind in manufacturing or is it getting the trains in service due to software issues?). Stadler have a bi-mode product that they could probably modify to meet the requirement to be fair.

Plus does it make sense to maintain the stock at Neville Hill? It's a long move from Sheffield to Leeds and there's no reason the depot can't transfer to Northern so it doesn't have to be an EMR depot permanetly. Plus, as has been stated, deals these days tend to include manufacturers providing maintenance as well which often means building a new depot.

I certainly wouldn't rule out Neville Hill but I would strongly advise against assuming that Neville Hill will be the depot in the long term for EMRs long distance fleet considering that there are wide range of options that are available. Even if you don't like them.

ainsworth74 said:

Sheffield is pretty much full overnight with around twenty-two units expected there every day. Plus as far as I'm aware the "light" maintenance truly is light in that it's the sort of stuff that could be done by a fitter in a station. So a good idea but I'm not sure it's really practical.



The only manufacturers that have products currently for an intercity bi-mode are Hitachi and Bombardier. Hitachi have a product that's getting its various teething troubles out of the way as we speak and by 2022 they will no doubt be a proven product. Bombardier have a product based on an existing design that they could start producing (and are they that behind in manufacturing or is it getting the trains in service due to software issues?). Stadler have a bi-mode product that they could probably modify to meet the requirement to be fair.

Plus does it make sense to maintain the stock at Neville Hill? It's a long move from Sheffield to Leeds and there's no reason the depot can't transfer to Northern so it doesn't have to be an EMR depot permanetly. Plus, as has been stated, deals these days tend to include manufacturers providing maintenance as well which often means building a new depot.

I certainly wouldn't rule out Neville Hill but I would strongly advise against assuming that Neville Hill will be the depot in the long term for EMRs long distance fleet considering that there are wide range of options that are available. Even if you don't like them.

Click to expand...

Well Bombardier have only produced 1 GA Aventra, and still haven't produced any SWR or WM Aventras.

Actually Siemens have the Desiro Verve, which does have the option of a Bi-mode, which looks very similar to the hydrogen fuel cell system proposed by EMR.

But where would a new depot be built?