East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

ainsworth74 · 11 Apr 2019

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

Hmm that is concerning though considering that the first GA Aventra was produced in September I'm not convinced that they haven't produced any since.

cactustwirly said:
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.

Ah yes I'd forgotten about that. Siemens of course are quite keen on building new depots for fleets that they produce. See York, Ardwick and Northam. They don't always go for new depots of course but they're one of the manufacturers who does.

cactustwirly said:
But where would a new depot be built?

I was unaware that there was no empty land to be found at all in a suitable location on the MML. If it is not the case that the entirety of the Midlands is covered by buildings already then I'm sure a suitable parcel of land in a convenient location near the line could be found.

RailUK Forums

222001 · 11 Apr 2019

jcc said:
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.

That surely only leaves them with a choice of 170s and 185s as a combined fleet? Unless they want to wait for 175s in 2022-2023, but then they'd still need a combined fleet.

Failed Unit · 11 Apr 2019

222001 said:
That surely only leaves them with a choice of 170s and 185s as a combined fleet? Unless they want to wait for 175s in 2022-2023, but then they'd still need a combined fleet.

Can the 175 use sprinter speed limits? I think the 170s are the best units. Considering they are already cleared on all routes except Barton - Cleethorpes (unless tpe used one on it)

hwl · 11 Apr 2019

ainsworth74 said:
Hmm that is concerning though considering that the first GA Aventra was produced in September I'm not convinced that they haven't produced any since.

They have also finished one SWR 701 as well.
A logical thing to do is to produce an initial unit, get the client to inspect and do some testing before starting to mass produce.

They won't be far of finishing Crosssrail and Lo units so may be the logical thing to to get the all finished and then move on the Anglia /SW units so they are only making 2 main variants rather than 4 at a time?

hwl · 11 Apr 2019

222001 said:
That surely only leaves them with a choice of 170s and 185s as a combined fleet? Unless they want to wait for 175s in 2022-2023, but then they'd still need a combined fleet.

153s/156s would be 35 then so probably keeps those Roscos happy. Or 170 ex WM come in first and displace 153/156s with 175 coming later to displace 158s?

DanDaDriver · 11 Apr 2019

ainsworth74 said:
I was unaware that there was no empty land to be found at all in a suitable location on the MML. If it is not the case that the entirety of the Midlands is covered by buildings already then I'm sure a suitable parcel of land in a convenient location near the line could be found.

Chaddesden sidings would be my bet.

Aictos · 11 Apr 2019

Failed Unit said:
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.

Not really a bad choice of units to compare other then your fixation on hating the Class 700s along with others here, my point remains that when the Class 700s were first introduced onto the Great Northern if a train had a fault it was more likely that a Thameslink driver having MORE experience with the fleet would be able to fault find a lot easier then a Great Northern driver new to the fleet who wouldn't have as much experience in fault finding as the TL driver.

Course this has changed as more and more GN drivers have got used to the quirks of the Class 700s and should be able to fault find a lot better then when they did when they first undertook the traction course.

My point still stands though as Old Oak Common actually managed to have a good understanding of the fleet which was lost when the work went to Crofton.

yorksrob said:
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.

Then you should have made this clear which you didn't!

yorksrob said:
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.

So no mention of the fact that Old Oak Common actually managed to make them reliable and understood all their quirks which meant all this knowledge was lost when the work went to Crofton...

yorksrob · 11 Apr 2019

HamworthyGoods said:
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...

Because the EMT HST fleet is generally reliable. This is certainly true of my experience of using them over the past fifteen years or so.

No one who thinks of the railway as something to get people from A to B (as opposed to a nationwide virtue signalling exercise) would, in their right minds, replace a reliable train with something renowned for breaking down at the drop of a hat.

cactustwirly · 11 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
Because the EMT HST fleet is generally reliable. This is certainly true of my experience of using them over the past fifteen years or so.

No one who thinks of the railway as something to get people from A to B (as opposed to a nationwide virtue signalling exercise) would, in their right minds, replace a reliable train with something renowned for breaking down at the drop of a hat.

But they're not that reliable, and apparently in quite a bad condition mechanically (the interior was in quite a state before EMT refurbished them, so god knows what the rest of them are like!), so really need replacing ASAP!

yorksrob · 11 Apr 2019

cactustwirly said:
But they're not that reliable, and apparently in quite a bad condition mechanically (the interior was in quite a state before EMT refurbished them, so god knows what the rest of them are like!), so really need replacing ASAP!

I'm only going by my experience in using them, by which I mean I can't remember ever having one not turn up. It might be that EMT have enough of them spare to give them the TLC they need, to which I say good. That adds to their reliability, which is something a micro-fleet of flakey 180's can't compete with.

They need replacing when the new trains arrive, not hastily with something so unreliable, the previous TOC can't wait to see the back of it.

Another issue - capacity. The ex GC HST's are short, but if they're planning to replace othet HST diagrams, won't we see a big fall in capacity?

cactustwirly · 11 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
I'm only going by my experience in using them, by which I mean I can't remember ever having one not turn up. It might be that EMT have enough of them spare to give them the TLC they need, to which I say good. That adds to their reliability, which is something a micro-fleet of flakey 180's can't compete with.

They need replacing when the new trains arrive, not hastily with something so unreliable, the previous TOC can't wait to see the back of it.

Another issue - capacity. The ex GC HST's are short, but if they're planning to replace othet HST diagrams, won't we see a big fall in capacity?

I was talking about the exGC sets which are being replaced first!
Incidentally I've had 3 HSTs fail or be replaced by Meridians!

The 180s were quite reliable when they were with GWR, and the diagrams are much less intensive, so I don't think they'll be a problem.

yorksrob · 11 Apr 2019

cactustwirly said:
I was talking about the exGC sets which are being replaced first!
Incidentally I've had 3 HSTs fail or be replaced by Meridians!

Well, I've had more GC 180's and EC 225's fail on me than EMT HST's. I can only remember one occasion in ten years, and then we were turfed off due to a lineside fire.

I thought the suggestion was that the 180's and displaced Meridians would lead to more HST's being replaced than just the ex GC ones.

krus_aragon · 11 Apr 2019

Failed Unit said:
Can the 175 use sprinter speed limits? I think the 170s are the best units. Considering they are already cleared on all routes except Barton - Cleethorpes (unless tpe used one on it)

To the best of my knowledge, 175s can use MU, DMU and HST speed limits, but not SP (sprinter) ones.

Grimsby town · 11 Apr 2019

I think the local fleet is likely to be turbostars of some sort. West Mildlands trains could provide 23 which would be enough to replace the 158 diagrams (apart from Liverpool to Nottingham) and the 156s. This would leave 22 153s needing to be replaced. This could be done by less trains due to 153s running in multiple at times. There would probably need to be up to an additional 10 units to cover the improvements to services.

I heard a rumour that the 171s may have been considered. I'm not sure a total of 43 units would be enough to cover all diagrams including improvements. It could be possible that some 170s could come from CrossCountry in return for the 222s. Alternatively more 170s were expected to leave Scotrail initially if I am correct. Could it be the case that Abelio send 158s to Scotland in return for 170s?

Failed Unit · 11 Apr 2019

Aictos said:
Not really a bad choice of units to compare other then your fixation on hating the Class 700s along with others here, my point remains that when the Class 700s were first introduced onto the Great Northern if a train had a fault it was more likely that a Thameslink driver having MORE experience with the fleet would be able to fault find a lot easier then a Great Northern driver new to the fleet who wouldn't have as much experience in fault finding as the TL driver.

Course this has changed as more and more GN drivers have got used to the quirks of the Class 700s and should be able to fault find a lot better then when they did when they first undertook the traction course.

So you can prove this of course? I didn’t see the MTIN drop because they started using them on GN. They were and still are low and break down far too frequently. If you can prove that the poor MTIN is down to the drivers I will look forward to discussing it on another thread.

BTW I don’t hate the 700s. Just unhappy that they break down more often than what they replaced.

But I will leave this now as it has nothing to do with EMT. What I don’t understand is how a micro fleet is going to help EMT. Standardisation is what is needed. I think I am as likely to see 180s on EMT as I am refurbished 156s (complete with air conditioning)

AndyW33 · 11 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Something that I'd be wondering is whether Abellio were able to put in a better bid because they now run WMT, and thus are expecting to achieve a certain level of synergies from reduced duplication in the Midlands (e.g. of staff maintaining stations like Wilnecote and Burton-upon-Trent).

But neither the WMT nor the EMT/new EMR franchises operate trains to Wilnecote or Burton-upon-Trent, that's Cross Country. As a matter of policy Cross Country doesn't manage stations, so the only possible change at, say, Burton would be to exchange control from nearby EM Derby for control from WM Birmingham. Still not the franchise that runs the trains, so why bother.

I would also have thought that there would be some kind of clause in the franchise agreement to ensure that there isn't an abuse of market power resulting from the fact that passengers from as far afield as Hereford and Sheffield will now have the same parent company flogging tickets to London, and in particular for places like Burton-upon-Trent or Derby where the option is, broadly speaking, now going to be Abellio (WMT) or Abellio (EMR)! I wonder if a similar sort of clause was inserted when FirstGroup got SWR?

Again, since WMT don't serve Burton or Derby, they can at best only provide part of an alternative route to London from Birmingham onwards, in competition with West Coast (if that's what it ends up being called). Now if Abellio was awarded the Cross Country franchise, your worries. might be more valid. Nobody seemed to care about lack of competition when Stagecoach ran both EM and EC franchises, and it is the ECML that provides such competition as exists from the East Midlands to London, until you get as far south as Northamptonshire.

Failed Unit · 11 Apr 2019

Grimsby town said:
I think the local fleet is likely to be turbostars of some sort. West Mildlands trains could provide 23 which would be enough to replace the 158 diagrams (apart from Liverpool to Nottingham) and the 156s. This would leave 22 153s needing to be replaced. This could be done by less trains due to 153s running in multiple at times. There would probably need to be up to an additional 10 units to cover the improvements to services.

I heard a rumour that the 171s may have been considered. I'm not sure a total of 43 units would be enough to cover all diagrams including improvements. It could be possible that some 170s could come from CrossCountry in return for the 222s. Alternatively more 170s were expected to leave Scotrail initially if I am correct. Could it be the case that Abelio send 158s to Scotland in return for 170s?

Transport Scotland would never allow it. Remember when CT tried to swap 156s and 158s?

I wonder how many routes could use 3 car all day. Nottingham- Worksop i understand is very busy. Lincolnshire should be overjoyed with 2. I know Grimsby - Lincoln often is overcrowded even with 2. But I think that is down to the poor frequency. I doubt everyone wants to use the 1718 from Lincoln. But the ones either side are over 2 hour gaps.

ashworth · 11 Apr 2019

Grimsby town said:
I think the local fleet is likely to be turbostars of some sort. West Mildlands trains could provide 23 which would be enough to replace the 158 diagrams (apart from Liverpool to Nottingham) and the 156s. This would leave 22 153s needing to be replaced. This could be done by less trains due to 153s running in multiple at times. There would probably need to be up to an additional 10 units to cover the improvements to services.

I heard a rumour that the 171s may have been considered. I'm not sure a total of 43 units would be enough to cover all diagrams including improvements. It could be possible that some 170s could come from CrossCountry in return for the 222s. Alternatively more 170s were expected to leave Scotrail initially if I am correct. Could it be the case that Abelio send 158s to Scotland in return for 170s?

Therefore we could be getting our old trains back from the days of Central Trains! So many people felt that East Midlands Trains got a bad deal when Central Trains was split up and all the 170’s went to the West Midlands or Cross Country and EMT got many older cast offs, some in terrible condition, from other TOCs with 153’s, 156’s and 158’s coming our way. EMT made a fantastic job of refurbishing these and maintaining them, especially the 158’s. We were even told at the time that the 158’s were better than the 170s we lost. Now we may be getting these old trains back as the West Midlands get more new trains.

yorksrob · 11 Apr 2019

Aictos said:
So no mention of the fact that Old Oak Common actually managed to make them reliable and understood all their quirks which meant all this knowledge was lost when the work went to Crofton...

Well, there's the point that other TOC's have had issues with these trains, but even if we were to believe that the problem lies primarily with Crofton, what preparations are going on to rediscover and relocate that expertise to EMT, and how quickly can it be done so as to avoid passengers being subjected to an unreliable fleet ?

Elecman · 11 Apr 2019

There is a depot full of Alstom staff that will be going spare shortly ( along with the similar 175 units)

NoOnesFool · 11 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
Because the EMT HST fleet is generally reliable. This is certainly true of my experience of using them over the past fifteen years or so.

No one who thinks of the railway as something to get people from A to B (as opposed to a nationwide virtue signalling exercise) would, in their right minds, replace a reliable train with something renowned for breaking down at the drop of a hat.

Sorry to contradict but the EMT HSTs are not reliable at all. There are frequently set swaps, failures on depot in the mornings and also plenty of minor issues to boot. Perhaps not as bad as Hull Trains Class 180s but certainly a derogation in comparison to Meridians and other newer stock. The franchise award is taking the right steps in replacing some of them. The trouble is, by the time that the last ones are being replaced, they will be nearing half a century and reliability will have worsened even more.

Class 170101 · 11 Apr 2019

clagmonster said:
No. There is only a path for one passenger train an hour. This effectively replaces the Lincoln-Leicester on the Lincoln - Notts stretch.

Lincoln said:
From the December 2021 timetable change, East Midlands Railway will only be permitted to use one parallel movement over Newark Flat Crossing.

Disappointing really. I cannot believe that two trains per hour are not required between Lincoln and Nottingham with one continuing towards Derby (maybe to Crewe) and a second to Leicester.

LowLevel · 11 Apr 2019

Class 170101 said:
Disappointing really. I cannot believe that two trains per hour are not required between Lincoln and Nottingham with one continuing towards Derby (maybe to Crewe) and a second to Leicester.

They may well be required but sadly the mainline is the priority :'(

yorksrob · 11 Apr 2019

NoOnesFool said:
Sorry to contradict but the EMT HSTs are not reliable at all. There are frequently set swaps, failures on depot in the mornings and also plenty of minor issues to boot.

Set swaps and minor issues don't prevent me from catching one.

As long as they're more reliable than the 180's, they shouldn't be replaced with them.

222001 · 11 Apr 2019

Elecman said:
There is a depot full of Alstom staff that will be going spare shortly ( along with the similar 175 units)

2023 isn't really shortly though...

krus_aragon · 11 Apr 2019

Elecman said:
There is a depot full of Alstom staff that will be going spare shortly ( along with the similar 175 units)

I'm not sure how "spare" the staff of the Alstom depot in Chester will be, given that TfW's new CAF stock will be based there (and at Machynlleth).

anamyd · 11 Apr 2019

222001 said:
2023 isn't really shortly though...

175s are going off lease first in late 2021-2022, then 158s, then 150/2s

grumpyoldman01 · 12 Apr 2019

DanDaDriver said:
Chaddesden sidings would be my bet.

Or the old Celanese site at Spondon; shame it's just lost its rail connection

grumpyoldman01 · 12 Apr 2019

krus_aragon said:
To the best of my knowledge, 175s can use MU, DMU and HST speed limits, but not SP (sprinter) ones.

This is as shown in the Sectional Appendix

DanDaDriver · 12 Apr 2019

grumpyoldman01 said:
Or the old Celanese site at Spondon; shame it's just lost its rail connection

The old sidings at Barrow Hill. The site of Staveley Works, there’s plenty of places.

East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

Forum Staff

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Member