New trains for East Midlands Franchise

Jozhua · 30 Jul 2019

I mean the HSTs seem to have pretty inefficient table seating almost all the way down the car and very thick seats so hopefully they will have enough capacity to replace them. However in 2019, where we can safely assume rail growth and where we are living with the mistakes of ordering trains that are too short, simply 'replacing' existing capacity probably isn't enough.

I reckon that the 222's will stay with the franchise though, they're not too old and with a good refurb will probably serve the franchise for at least another decade. Are they going to have a surplus if they keep the 222's?

As these are going to have shorter cars and more engines, guessing they'll get a new classification, perhaps 803?

RailUK Forums

LNW-GW Joint · 30 Jul 2019

Jozhua said:
I reckon that the 222's will stay with the franchise though, they're not too old and with a good refurb will probably serve the franchise for at least another decade. Are they going to have a surplus if they keep the 222's?

How about this quote today then, from the Abellio MD:

These new trains form the centrepiece of our ambitious plans for a complete replacement of all the trains on the East Midlands Railway

That suggests all EMR's current trains will go.
I'd expect the 222s to find their way to XC in due course.

ohgoditsjames · 30 Jul 2019

Jozhua said:
I mean the HSTs seem to have pretty inefficient table seating almost all the way down the car and very thick seats so hopefully they will have enough capacity to replace them. However in 2019, where we can safely assume rail growth and where we are living with the mistakes of ordering trains that are too short, simply 'replacing' existing capacity probably isn't enough.

I reckon that the 222's will stay with the franchise though, they're not too old and with a good refurb will probably serve the franchise for at least another decade. Are they going to have a surplus if they keep the 222's?

As these are going to have shorter cars and more engines, guessing they'll get a new classification, perhaps 803?

Maybe they’ll reconfigure the 222’s back to 9 car units assuming that they don’t hand them over to XC.

I reckon these new trains will get numbered 803.

Jozhua · 30 Jul 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
That suggests all EMR's current trains will go.
I'd expect the 222s to find their way to XC in due course.

Oh dear. Overcrowding can be pretty bad as it is, this doesn't look like it's going to solve it much. Seems like it will be 185's all over again...

At least XC might get a capacity boost, one that's desperately needed.

tbtc · 30 Jul 2019

Whilst I'm not a fan of the low numbers being talked about here, as well as the savings from Corby (360s taking those duties) and a uniform fleet (reduced dwell times at St Pancras) and a speed up through Thameslink territory (i.e. going back to what we had before!)... there's also the problem that the "fast"/"slow" Sheffield services at the moment, which means that a (seven coach) "fast" will return south as a "fast" and a four or five coach "slow" will similarly wait to return as a "slow"... which means that there's an eighty minute wait at Sheffield some of the day (since a twenty minute dwell is insufficient, so a unit runs empty towards Darnall and the runs empty back into the station, just to clear a platform, since there's not enough space at Sheffield)... but with a uniform fleet of five coach trains, that may save a unit, since a northbound "fast" and be a southbound "slow" and vice versa.

I don't know how long the dwells are at Nottingham, but presumably there can be some efficiencies. Certainly at St Pancras.

sprinterguy said:
Indeed, you'd certainly hope there's no plans on retaining a non-standard, chronically unreliable microfleet alongside the new trains.

Unless the plan is to bring in the bare minimum of AT300s in the short term and then introduce a follow-on order to replace the 180s? Thus getting to look good twice.

LNW-GW Joint said:
The trains will apparently also be maintained by Hitachi at Etches Park.
I had thought Doncaster might have figured in the maintenance regime, as for LNER and TPE.

Shame - I'd have preferred Doncaster, since there's probably demand for morning Donny - Sheffield services and evening returns (than for Derby - Sheffield services in the morning).

I guess this means the end to services from St Pancras/ Leicester to Leeds (i.e. no more Neville Hill).

krus_aragon said:
The trouble with the press release saying these units will be "regularly" operated in 10-carriage formations is that full moons also happen regularly (just not that frequently).

Haha - true!

The service at Denton station is certainly "regular"...

Jozhua said:
I reckon that the 222's will stay with the franchise though, they're not too old and with a good refurb will probably serve the franchise for at least another decade. Are they going to have a surplus if they keep the 222's?

Tricky. I'm underwhelmed by these numbers but I think that XC probably need the 222s more than EMR does (it feels like a bit of a luxury when there are so many people stood on XC services). 222s plus AT300s would be too much for EMR (given XC's clear need), but just the AT300s on their own will be pretty stretched.

edwin_m · 30 Jul 2019

Siemens Staines said:
It does seem like there are not enough sets ordered to run the Sheffield trains as 10-cars. Perhaps the idea is that all Sheffield trains are 5-cars that attach/detach to another portion at either Nottingham or Derby (possibly alternating). Given that the long term plan was for Sheffield to be served by HS2, then the requirement for London - Sheffield to be served by MML would reduced although that particular goalpost seems to have been moving in the last few days and since Abellio and Hitachi would have been in discussions over this particular contract.

HS2 is irrelevant because it doesn't happen until well beyond the franchise term.

My money would be on something like this from St Pancras (not considering which trains stop where north of Leicester):

0000 Market Harbrough-Leicester double, Sheffield in peak, split in off-peak for Nottingham and Sheffield
0003 peak only Leicester-Nottingham
0015 Luton Airport Parkway-Bedford-Kettering-Corby electric (connects at Kettering into 0033)
0030 Leicester-Sheffield
0033 Luton Airport Parkway-Kettering-Market Harborough-Leicester-Nottingham double in peak
0045 Luton Airport Parkway-Bedford-Kettering-Corby electric

This offsets the extra staff costs of running doubles by removing one off-peak path south of Leicester. The Ivanhoe service would be timed to provide a roughly 20min interval between Leicester and Nottingham, possibly connecting at Leicester out of the 0030.

If we'd got the electrification the lower leasing and running costs of EMUs might have allowed some longer ones to be affordable.

bunnahabhain · 30 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
HS2 is irrelevant because it doesn't happen until well beyond the franchise term.

My money would be on something like this from St Pancras (not considering which trains stop where north of Leicester):

0000 Market Harbrough-Leicester double, Sheffield in peak, split in off-peak for Nottingham and Sheffield

0003 peak only Leicester-Nottingham

0015 Luton Airport Parkway-Bedford-Kettering-Corby electric (connects at Kettering into 0033)

0030 Leicester-Sheffield

0033 Luton Airport Parkway-Kettering-Market Harborough-Leicester-Nottingham double in peak

0045 Luton Airport Parkway-Bedford-Kettering-Corby electric

This offsets the extra staff costs of running doubles by removing one off-peak path south of Leicester. The Ivanhoe service would be timed to provide a roughly 20min interval between Leicester and Nottingham, possibly connecting at Leicester out of the 0030.

If we'd got the electrification the lower leasing and running costs of EMUs might have allowed some longer ones to be affordable.

Can't happen because the ITT requires 4 trains per hour London to Leicester, the Ivanhoe timings are also subject to the Newark flat crossing path, and the train must cross the flat crossing at the same time as the service in the opposite direction.

Laketop · 30 Jul 2019

In the event that these trains fall to the same problem the 222s have when running 4+4, 4+5, and 5+5 - capacity issues and the inability to traverse between the trains, could there be an option to increase these trains to say 8, 9 or 10 car units and run more services?

Should the 222s stay after the delivery, too they could have a coach removed from the 5-car units to be added to the 7-car units to make them 8 or 9, and run 4-car units regionally and have longer trains for elsewhere?

Qwerty133 · 30 Jul 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Except the Nottingham- crewe service which will also run 2 car untill the newer 170 units arrive

Nottingham to Crewe is completely irrelevant for this thread but if it even exists as a service is very unlikely to get anything more than 2 coach 170s at any point in the franchise (which would still be a significant capacity boost to present and will provide more than enough capacity for all of the current passengers to get a seat).

LowLevel · 30 Jul 2019

Off peak the service pattern is established in Abellio's presentation.

1 TPH London - Leicester - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield
1 TPH London - Kettering - Market Harborough - Leicester - Nottingham
1 TPH London - Kettering - Market Harborough - Leicester - Loughborough - East Mids Parkway - Beeston - Nottingham
1 TPH London - Leicester - Loughborough - East Mids Pway - Long Eaton - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield
2 TPH London - Luton AP - Luton - Bedford - Wellingborough - Kettering - Corby.

Leicester confirmed to have 4 TPH so no off peak splitting.

Qwerty133 · 30 Jul 2019

Laketop said:
In the event that these trains fall to the same problem the 222s have when running 4+4, 4+5, and 5+5 - capacity issues and the inability to traverse between the trains, could there be an option to increase these trains to say 8, 9 or 10 car units and run more services?

Should the 222s stay after the delivery, too they could have a coach removed from the 5-car units to be added to the 7-car units to make them 8 or 9, and run 4-car units regionally and have longer trains for elsewhere?

the 222s were originally a mix of 4 and 9 coach units so it is definitely technically possible for them to return to such a formation. Unless XC make an order for similar trains it is unlikely that the 80x production capabilities would be maintained much beyond 2022 so extending the units may or may not be possible depending on the timescales in which it became apparent that it would be necessary and the money was available to do so. That being said it is more than likely that all of the 222s will be leaving the franchise for XC albeit I could see an argument for XC using them in 4/9 coach units rather than 5/7.

Qwerty133 · 30 Jul 2019

LowLevel said:
Off peak the service pattern is established in Abellio's presentation.

1 TPH London - Leicester - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield
1 TPH London - Kettering - Market Harborough - Leicester - Nottingham
1 TPH London - Kettering - Market Harborough - Leicester - Loughborough - East Mids Parkway - Beeston - Nottingham
1 TPH London - Leicester - Loughborough - East Mids Pway - Long Eaton - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield
2 TPH London - Luton AP - Luton - Bedford - Wellingborough - Kettering - Corby.

Leicester confirmed to have 4 TPH so no off peak splitting.

A shame that EMD continues to get 2 services an hour (although having heard from EMT management that the majority of the few non megabus passengers travel in first class I can understand the commercial reasons for doing so).

LowLevel · 30 Jul 2019

Qwerty133 said:
A shame that EMD continues to get 2 services an hour (although having heard from EMT management that the majority of the few non megabus passengers travel in first class I can understand the commercial reasons for doing so).

Megabus Plus may also carry on. Abellio and Stagecoach currently in discussions.

Paul472426 · 30 Jul 2019

tbtc said:
... there's also the problem that the "fast"/"slow" Sheffield services at the moment, which means that a (seven coach) "fast" will return south as a "fast" and a four or five coach "slow" will similarly wait to return as a "slow"... which means that there's an eighty minute wait at Sheffield some of the day (since a twenty minute dwell is insufficient, so a unit runs empty towards Darnall and the runs empty back into the station, just to clear a platform, since there's not enough space at Sheffield)... but with a uniform fleet of five coach trains, that may save a unit, since a northbound "fast" and be a southbound "slow" and vice versa.

.

There hasn’t been an 80 minute wait at Sheffield since the May 18 timetable recast, there also used to be a wait on the down train at Derby until the same time, speeding it up enabled one less unit to be needed on the ‘slow’ Sheffield, making it a 5hr circuit

swt_passenger · 30 Jul 2019

LowLevel said:
Megabus Plus may also carry on. Abellio and Stagecoach currently in discussions.

When I checked the Megabus site a few weeks ago, (we were discussing it in one of the East Midlands related threads), it stopped the week of the changeover...

LowLevel · 30 Jul 2019

swt_passenger said:
When I checked the Megabus site a few weeks ago, (we were discussing it in one of the East Midlands related threads), it stopped the week of the changeover...

Yes, there hasn't been any agreement to continue it yet but it is under discussion.

F Great Eastern · 30 Jul 2019

samuelmorris said:
I have to say, at the moment this looks like it may go the way of a certain other Abellio franchise, where full fleet replacement was touted but insufficient units were ordered to do the job and some uncertainties started creeping in.

Upon reading the spiel that was my first reaction too, and they will probably employ the same spin and avoidance tactics when asked questions about it like they have with Greater Anglia as well, with well rehearsed lines about x number of extra seats on the services, to hide the fact that the overall (seating+standing) capacity of many services would be cut a fair bit because of shorter trains which was not fully offset by the additional seats on already packed peak hour trains.

At the end of the day this has all the hallmarks of a typical Abellio bid, a bid that knows the theory of everything and the practice of nothing, probably completely written by bid managers and finance people without any proper consultation with anyone with a proper operations background who is probably going to be told to make it work and blamed when they are not able to, by which point, the bid managers who sold them a pup, will be long gone, just like in GA that saw many of the key directors involved leave.

ainsworth74 · 30 Jul 2019

F Great Eastern said:
probably completely written by bid managers and finance people without any proper consultation with anyone with a proper operations background who is probably going to be told to make it work

I think that's been quite strongly indicated for a little while now. Why else would it involve using 180s...

Bald Rick · 30 Jul 2019

I sorry if I missed it amongst the weapons grade wobble, but before anyone gets their knickers too far in a twist about fleet size / train length etc has there been any information on how many seats each of these trains will have?

If, as I suspect, a 5 car new train has roughly the same capacity as a 7 car meridian...

Aictos · 30 Jul 2019

LowLevel said:
Off peak the service pattern is established in Abellio's presentation.

1 TPH London - Leicester - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield
1 TPH London - Kettering - Market Harborough - Leicester - Nottingham
1 TPH London - Kettering - Market Harborough - Leicester - Lo - East Mids Parkway - Beeston - Nottingham
1 TPH London - Leicester - Loughborough - East Mids Pway - Long Eaton - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield
2 TPH London - Luton AP - Luton - Bedford - Wellingborough - Kettering - Corby.

Leicester confirmed to have 4 TPH so no off peak splitting.

So while those south of Kettering need change once for Nottingham services if they want stations to Sheffield they need to change at both Kettering and Leicester and that’s progress?

Would have been better if the hourly slow Sheffield stopped at Kettering alongside the slow Nottingham or stopped the slow Sheffield at Luton Parkway etc

F Great Eastern · 30 Jul 2019

Bald Rick said:
I sorry if I missed it amongst the weapons grade wobble, but before anyone gets their knickers too far in a twist about fleet size / train length etc has there been any information on how many seats each of these trains will have?

If, as I suspect, a 5 car new train has roughly the same capacity as a 7 car meridian...

Peak hour trains, especially commuter ones carry large amounts of standing passengers.

Whilst I'm all for extra numbers of seats to be provided, this should not be at the expense of standing room reduced on trains where it's like sardines, so that passengers who can be accomodated now, are unable to board because of the fact that the number of extra seats provided at peak time is a fair bit less than the standing space lost by having a shorter train.

This is what the worry with Greater Anglia is where they are replacing 8 car trains with 5 car trains that whilst they will deliver more seats the standing space will be reduced by such an extent that peak hour trains are likely to be leaving people behind.

Unfortunately it seems the likes of Bald Rick has never seen what a commuter railway is like at peak times and is one of these passengers who travels on intercity services, who would happily sacrifice standing space for 120 for 50 extra seats, despite the fact 70 passengers would now be stranded on the platform.

By the way, the word capacity doesn't mean number of seats, it means the total number of passengers a train can take, unless your a spin doctor paid by Abellio who changes the definition of the word capacity, like they change the definition of the word short form, to whatever definition suits them at a given time.

sprinterguy · 30 Jul 2019

Bald Rick said:
I sorry if I missed it amongst the weapons grade wobble, but before anyone gets their knickers too far in a twist about fleet size / train length etc has there been any information on how many seats each of these trains will have?

If, as I suspect, a 5 car new train has roughly the same capacity as a 7 car meridian...

That's not a bad point. Haven't seen any stats for seating capacity yet, but while I don't think a 5 car set will match a 7 car Meridian for total capacity, if each shorter 24 metre intermediate vehicle can accommodate 76 seats then it could have more standard class seats than a 7 car Meridian, though at a significant loss of first class seating capacity. Still not fully convinced by an all 5 car fleet myself.

Class 170101 · 30 Jul 2019

sprinterguy said:
Indeed: East Midlands Trains currently have 12 HSTs (9 x 2+8, plus 3 x 2+6) and 27 Meridians (6 x 7-car, 17 x 5-car and 4 x 4-car) in use on inter-city services - A total of 39 trains. Remove say 3 sets currently used on Corby services and that's still 36 trains being replaced by 33. I'm not sure how they hope that they "will regularly be operated in 10-carriage formations" when there'll be fewer new trains than existing ones and only a limited number of services that operate with pairs of Meridians at present as far as I am aware.

Plus 3 HSTs from Grand Central that have only been given to the MML due to inefficiencies caused by the Thameslink timetable. However whether Abellio will be able to re-time trains to get out of the inefficiency bearing in mind all the other constraints elsewhere on the MML I don't know.

sprinterguy said:
According to the sectional appendix, each of the platforms at St Pancras is 260 metres long. The Hitachi AT-300 vehicles are actually a little shorter than 26 metres, so a 10-car formation will fit.

I'm not surprised that we're seeing 5-car units on the Midland Mainline but I wasn't expecting a squadron fleet of the things. As you say, Midland Mainline services don't generally split en-route.

There is a split at Kettering for Corby and Melton Mowbray and the other portion for Sheffield currently.

ohgoditsjames said:
Funding for electrifying from Clay Cross to Sheffield hasn’t been committed so it could very well not happen. Bradway tunnel will be a ball ache to electrify now that Network Rail have rescinded their product acceptance of rigid bar conductors.

Even if it does happen, it’s asinine that there will be a 70+ mile gap without wires, one can only hope they decided to commit to electrification of the entire line.

Why have NR rescinded their product acceptance for the Rigid bar conductors?

F Great Eastern said:
Unfortunately it seems the likes of Bald Rick has never seen what a commuter railway is like at peak times and is one of these passengers who travels on intercity services, who would happily sacrifice standing space for 120 for 50 extra seats, despite the fact 70 passengers would now be stranded on the platform.

There won't be any standing allowance for MML surely as the services from Sheffield and Nottingham are mainly non-stop south of Kettering.

sprinterguy · 30 Jul 2019

Class 170101 said:
Plus 3 HSTs from Grand Central that have only been given to the MML due to inefficiencies caused by the Thameslink timetable.

I included the three ex-Grand Central HSTs in my numbers: "plus 3 x 2+6".

Class 170101 said:
There is a split at Kettering for Corby and Melton Mowbray and the other portion for Sheffield currently.

Ah, cheers for that. That'll stop when the Corby services go electric then.

JonathanH · 30 Jul 2019

swt_passenger said:
When I checked the Megabus site a few weeks ago, (we were discussing it in one of the East Midlands related threads), it stopped the week of the changeover...

LowLevel said:
Yes, there hasn't been any agreement to continue it yet but it is under discussion.

Megabusplus seems to be running until 30 August at the moment - ie two weeks into the Abellio franchise.

Domh245 · 30 Jul 2019

F Great Eastern said:
Peak hour trains, especially commuter ones carry large amounts of standing passengers.

Whilst I'm all for extra numbers of seats to be provided, this should not be at the expense of standing room reduced on trains where it's like sardines, so that passengers who can be accomodated now, are unable to board because of the fact that the number of extra seats provided at peak time is a fair bit less than the standing space lost by having a shorter train.

This is what the worry with Greater Anglia is where they are replacing 8 car trains with 5 car trains that whilst they will deliver more seats the standing space will be reduced by such an extent that peak hour trains are likely to be leaving people behind.

Unfortunately it seems the likes of Bald Rick has never seen what a commuter railway is like at peak times and is one of these passengers who travels on intercity services, who would happily sacrifice standing space for 120 for 50 extra seats, despite the fact 70 passengers would now be stranded on the platform.

By the way, the word capacity doesn't mean number of seats, it means the total number of passengers a train can take, unless your a spin doctor paid by Abellio who changes the definition of the word capacity, like they change the definition of the word short form, to whatever definition suits them at a given time.

Just as well that the discussion isn't about the pesky intercity services, oh...

FWIW I think you'll find that Bald Rick is very much aware of the balance between standing and sitting, certainly that's the impression I got from a number of posts in the Class 700 thread! Anything to get your dig at abellio in I guess

The Ham · 30 Jul 2019

Domh245 said:
Just as well that the discussion isn't about the pesky intercity services, oh...

FWIW I think you'll find that Bald Rick is very much aware of the balance between standing and sitting, certainly that's the impression I got from a number of posts in the Class 700 thread! Anything to get your dig at abellio in I guess

Indeed, I did wonder how much extra standing space there would be in a class 222 over a class 80x? My initial thought was not a lot. Unless there's something I've missed.

rdlover777 · 30 Jul 2019

Qwerty133 said:
the 222s were originally a mix of 4 and 9 coach units so it is definitely technically possible for them to return to such a formation.

iirc, MML had ordered 9 car 222s but the SRA (now split between DfT and ORR) decided after the order was done that they weren't allowed to run 9 cars.

SilentGrade · 30 Jul 2019

F Great Eastern said:
Whilst I'm all for extra numbers of seats to be provided, this should not be at the expense of standing room reduced on trains where it's like sardines, so that passengers who can be accomodated now, are unable to board because of the fact that the number of extra seats provided at peak time is a fair bit less than the standing space lost by having a shorter train.

How often are peak time EMTs actually packed like sardines though? Especially out of London... the answer is very few

tasky · 30 Jul 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
How about this quote today then, from the Abellio MD:

That suggests all EMR's current trains will go.
I'd expect the 222s to find their way to XC in due course.

That quote suggests that there'll be more trains ordered I think, centrepiece = not the whole thing but very important

New trains for East Midlands Franchise

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member