-
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!
East Midlands franchise won by Abellio
- Thread starter InTheEastMids
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Qwerty133
Established Member
There are other reasons why the ECML HSTs are more suited to remaining in service than the EMT ones. Whatever some on this forum may think IC70 seats are an accessibility issue in themselves due to the fixed armrests making it difficult for many with reduced mobility to enter and exit and the lack of support making them unsuitable for many with back issues. The ECML HSTs are also generally more modern and contain customer facilities not installed on the EMT examples.
LNER sets can have the cheaper bits of PRM work done after finishing on the ECML but before transferring to the new franchise. Sending the current HSTs away will stretch the fleet. 13 sets would be a reduction of 2 but I guess they will make do until Corby EMU services start.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,270
Given that the 180s seem to be going to EMR, they will presumably directly replace the 3 Derby based HST sets, leaving just the 9 Neville Hill sets to be replaced. I’m not sure why 13 sets incoming would be required?
I was replying to Qwerty's post which stated 13 sets. There are 4 Hull Trains 180s but they have only 5 coaches. Doubling them up + 13 LNER HSTs would match the current 15 EMT HSTs.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,270
If you read my post you would see that EMT don’t have 15 HST sets.
If you are asking about Birmingham-London then yes full restaurant service was offered.
Additionally, the normal arrangement at Euston was that there was always a train ready for boarding complete with an already open buffet car (far fewer food outlets at stations in those days, of course) - so, if anything, IC Plus rather than IC Lite.
Last edited:
I can’t remember, but the Shuttle advertising always emphasised that Buffet cars would be open for service from whenever boarding commenced
Qwerty133
Established Member
Where exactly?
Although I could see a higher than the current number of HSTs being used depending on leasing costs if the DfT would allow them to be used on more services I made no such suggestion.
Sorry I originally started a post that quoted yours and at Semaphore's post but did not finish it and then started a post on my phone, which I have clearly messed up. Modern Railways Rolling Stock Review 2018-19 lists 30 class 43s for EMT. The post that states 13 LNER sets:
Thanks
Although I hate headlines that suggest "HSTs could be transferred". Yes, but it could snow tomorrow too! The world could end tomorrow, I could be run over by a bus...
£64 (via Grantham) vs £66 (MML) + an extra 15 mins and a change.
I can't see many people doing that
Realistically, the MML is there to get people from Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester to London and secondary stations in between the three Midlands cities.
I can see services south of Bedford being eroded further in favour of speediness to the MIdlands.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,270
Modern Railways is wrong; I assume they are including the two EMT liveried power cars with LNER, which are directly leased to LNER.
transplanted
Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 36
£64 (via Grantham) vs £66 (MML) + an extra 15 mins and a change.
I can't see many people doing that
Realistically, the MML is there to get people from Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester to London and secondary stations in between the three Midlands cities.
I can see services south of Bedford being eroded further in favour of speediness to the MIdlands.
You would be surprised... Particularly on Sundays it can be better/as good to go from Nottingham via London and on a Friday afternoons/evening, going via Grantham can also be a good option. Not to mention advance fares.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What I'd like to see is the work being done at Bedford to provide an up fast platform, then all services to stop there for connectional purposes but all stops south thereof withdrawn. A stop at Bedford would provide excellent connections from the plentiful Thameslink services.
Qwerty133
Established Member
There's simply no need for all services to stop at Bedford. The 2 non-stop services from Leicester each hour should be maintained without question.
cactustwirly
Established Member
No that's ridiculous, all services shouldn't stop there, It's like stopping all WCML services at MK!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There are far fewer services on the MML, so no, it wouldn't, it would be like the service that presently stops at MKC stopping there. It's not about a proportion of trains, it's about a useable service from the Thameslink stations to all of the destinations in some form, which it presently really isn't.
That said, post HS2 I would expect all WCML services to stop at MKC. By then MK could well have a population well over half a million.
cactustwirly
Established Member
My point is that it is unnecessary, and will slow down journey time for everyone
tbtc
Veteran Member
Person who lives on the Marston Vale line wants all InterCity services to stop at the station on the far end of the Marston Vale line... I know, I shouldn't be surprised. Similarly, it'd be nice for me living in Sheffield if every single ECML service was forced to stop at Retford, so I could have plenty of handy connections (even if it inconvenienced long distance passengers).
But four (supposedly InterCity) trains an hour at Bedford would be overkill (especially on top of two Corby services per hour) and would just lead to Bedford passengers preferring an InterCity train to their commuter EMUs, thus flooding the long distance trains with local passengers.
I could see the argument for more InterCity services stopping at Kettering, where there will be regular connections to Bedford/ Luton/ Luton Airport on the ex-Corby services, but certainly not all services - the MML is uncompetitive enough as it is for long distance journeys (e.g. London to Sheffield is slower than London to York, despite York being almost fifty miles further north), without adding in more stops at local stations on every service.
InTheEastMids
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 727
Maybe things will change with EWR, but the vast majority of passengers on an EMT service are going to/from London. If we're going all out for a clock-face timetable, then for the 4tph from Leicester, I think 2tph for Kettering and 1 of those calling additionally at Luton Airport would give reasonable options for most. In the peaks, of course things might be a bit different. Obviously slick interchanges at Kettering can only help.
Even once EWR is running, journeys like Shef/Notts/Derby/Leicester to MK & Oxford are unlikely to be much faster via EWR than current options like via Nuneaton or Birmingham using XC.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A reasonable alternative would be to get the wires to Leicester and run a 12-car set once an hour with 8 going to Corby and 4 to Leicester. But it'd still mean two changes for anyone on Thameslink to get to points north.
FWIW I'd support the trains at Bedford being pick up/set down only so the stop is only for use between Thameslink stations and points north, not fill with commuters.
InTheEastMids
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 727
OK... but this is getting towards crayonista thinking, because to achieve this, you have to
1- extend the wires to Leicester - tbf the chances of this are going up, given the likelihood of a new PM/general election, which surely must see Grayling removed from DfT
2- add an additional train from Kettering to Leicester that would probably take 90 mins (maybe more) to get from London to Leicester. This will be 20-30 minutes slower from London to Leicester than the non-stop trains, meaning it would probably be passed (maybe twice) by faster trains. In turn, this means that there has to be sufficient demand from North of London to justify a 4-car EMU
3- inconvenience Corby passengers with splitting (and joining heading South - timetable risk!)
4- path that 5th train per hour through the long, 3-aspect sections between Sharnbrook (?) and Leicester, and particularly Kettering to Leicester when - southbound in particular - there's may also be a train load of stone grinding its way up Desborough bank, getting in the way
5- get that train through congested Wigston junctions to Leicester
6- platform it at Leicester (which you might be able to do at the South end of P4, as few long trains use P4)
In theory, 5&6 could get solved by the Syston-Wigston scheme, but there's no clear date for delivering that.
So, never say never but this feels like quite a lot of cost to realise what feels like quite a small benefit.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Or you do what VT have done with the "via Birmingham" trains, you offer well-priced Advances on the slower services and nick a few more budget passengers from National Express.
InTheEastMids
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 727
I have yet to see this proposal about the 180s anywhere beyond this place - has anybody else? (Genuine question). It may be entirely correct, but seems to stem from putting the franchise commitment (that EMR will start withdrawing HSTs, by implication the ex-GC ones in May 2020 on account of them being knackered) together with the view that the 180s are the only suitable diesel stock available in May 2020 that isn't an HST. This may indeed be what happens.
However, it may be that a new timetable solves this (the ex-GC HSTs were taken on because of timetabling issues created by Thameslink). It may just be that optimisation of the timetable allows one or more HSTs to be ditched (thus meeting the commitment to the letter, if not in spirit). This sounds a lot cheaper than clearing 180s on the MML and training up a load of drivers and staff, for a train that is only going to be needed for service with EMT until the Corby electrics free up 3-4 222 diagrams.
Alternatively, it is suggested in the Enhancement Delivery Plan that there will be an electrified route from London to Corby by May 2020, so perhaps what they're saying is that the ex-GC units will start to go because of arriving electric units. However time is getting pretty short to do this, and there's been no announcement so we are still speculating on 360s vs 379s vs 365s. And, to be honest, the 365 rumour is simply one I'm trying to start
InTheEastMids
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 727
OK, however, now you're proposing all these upgrades to sell low-yielding advance fares. To an extent EMT already do this from London with the Megabus routes that converge on East Midlands Parkway because there's already significant off-peak overcapacity on the fast Nottingham trains.
Is there strong pent-up demand for off-peak travel from e.g. Filtwick to Chesterfield? There may be - and of course I hope we all want to see modal shift from car to train, and new rail travel possibilities. I just think it has a pretty weak business case, either directly (fare revenue) or indirectly (e.g. reduced car use or economic growth). So it's well down the pecking order compared to sorting out XC or transpennine routes.
I guess, for me, there's so many "must do" and "should do" investments in rail that are needed, that anything that feels like a "could do" or "nice to have" is in fact a "shouldn't do". This feels "nice to have" and therefore we shouldn't do it
I have yet to see this proposal about the 180s anywhere beyond this place - has anybody else? (Genuine question). It may be entirely correct, but seems to stem from putting the franchise commitment (that EMR will start withdrawing HSTs, by implication the ex-GC ones in May 2020 on account of them being knackered) together with the view that the 180s are the only suitable diesel stock available in May 2020 that isn't an HST. This may indeed be what happens.
However, it may be that a new timetable solves this (the ex-GC HSTs were taken on because of timetabling issues created by Thameslink). It may just be that optimisation of the timetable allows one or more HSTs to be ditched (thus meeting the commitment to the letter, if not in spirit). This sounds a lot cheaper than clearing 180s on the MML and training up a load of drivers and staff, for a train that is only going to be needed for service with EMT until the Corby electrics free up 3-4 222 diagrams.
Alternatively, it is suggested in the Enhancement Delivery Plan that there will be an electrified route from London to Corby by May 2020, so perhaps what they're saying is that the ex-GC units will start to go because of arriving electric units. However time is getting pretty short to do this, and there's been no announcement so we are still speculating on 360s vs 379s vs 365s. And, to be honest, the 365 rumour is simply one I'm trying to start
180s are cleared on the MML anyway, they've run into St Pancras on diversion for Hull Trains before.
ashkeba
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2019
- Messages
- 2,171
That opportunity has probably been lost to housing developments on top of the hill on a more direct path (Ise Valley View and so on). To build the 3km straight might now mean at least 1km in tunnel and new bridges over the Ise, Nene and some flooded gravel pits which I think are part of a SSSI.
- Status