New trains for East Midlands Franchise

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.

Click to expand...

A bit harsh, I feel. When I stand on platform 3 at St Albans each morning - with around 500 other people - all waiting for a 12 car 700 to come in that we will all spend 20-30 minutes standing on ...

... I often see up EMTs passing through with, frankly, not many standees on board. Certainly not enough that, say, an average 20%* increase in seating capacity on the services across the peak hours would not accommodate under normal circumstances. Particularly as none of them will be stopping south of Kettering in future.

*a 10 car new train could conceivably have around 550-600 seats on it, compared to 507 / 484 for 11/10 car Meridians, 468 for an HST, and less for shorter Meridian formations (clearly). It’s fair to say that all EMT services from Leicester arriving London between 0730 and 1000 are likely to be 10 car.

I'd seen it suggested that IETs couldn't meet the MML franchise spec because they don't have identical performance on diesel and electric. Some people were touting bi-mode Aventeras as more likely. Any idea what happened there?

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

Click to expand...

I was more referring back to the original discussion made by another poster about the similarities between the bids and the low amount of rolling stock being ordered, I wasn't commenting specifically on the issues with the train in particular, I shouldn't have gone off-topic though so I apologise for that.

It's just that Abellio's bids tend to be a lot about marketing and what they can achieve in theory but in practice look pretty iffy because it's not as simple as it looks with numbers. You can bet your life a bid manager has seen the size of the class 180s and the number of passengers they can accommodate and that was all they used for their calculation pretty much.

The Abellio Greater Anglia bid has always looked iffy for the commuter services and to a lesser degree the Intercity and Stansted Express services. The local services for the 3/4 carriage FLIRTS I would not expect to be a problem and never have, although there are potential issues with stabling and fuel with them which probably can be overcome. The Commuter fleet they are going to have quite a few issues with though unless they keep some old stock on.

I see many of the same issues with a few of Abellio's franchises, they have an excellent marketing team but with serious issues with Scotrail leading to them being put on notice, a bid that has already encountered several problems on Greater Anglia with further problems to come where the ops team have been sold a pup and this bid where they're relying on awfully unreliable trains and extremely tight fleet numbers, suggests they are a lot of style and promises but struggle with delivering it.

Abellio have been a breath of fresh air on GA prior to the most recent franchise award, they tended to have better balanced teams for previous awards, a good mix of engineering, operations and bid management people. In the last few years they've got the balance wrong and seem to be going all out to win franchises with promises made by bid managers that the operations teams have, from what I have heard, had little input in and that is worrying, as since bid managers are good with numbers and theory, they don't know the practice of things, which leads to things like 180s being proposed.

EMT services in the peak in/out of London are very rarely packed to the rafters. Full and standing yes, but packed only usually if either ECML or WCML is down or previous services cancelled. Busiest tend to be the hourly fast Sheffields with 7/222s, and the first off-peak, but tbh even the 1901 recently have been rather less busy in recent months as I assume regular commuters now know to avoid them like the plague.

Morning southbound services very rarely standing room barring the most croweded 2/3 trains.

I am more concerned if they were mainly 5-car 24-metre carriages they can be quite cosy north of Leicester against peak London flow but the increased seating availability (if equivalent to a 7/222) then hopefully that should ease the current situation somewhat.

Nothing ground-breaking but I'm willing to see more details emerge before jumping in with the criticism.

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.

Click to expand...

Surely services could be better than this?

I'm struggling to work out how the relatively modest number of 5 car trains is going to improve services to passengers. Certainly not when they have to squeeze 10 coach loads of passengers into a single 5 car unit, because one unit failed at the depot. I'm concerned that any benefit of extra seats is offset by squeezing them in - meaning no standing room. At the moment any peak services which are only 5 coaches result in people sitting in luggage racks!

5 car units obviously offer opportunities for the operator of cost cutting - at expense of passenger comfort. Having regularly experienced this in Cross country trains, I am definately not in favour of this.

The only other benefit of all 5 car units is the ability to split trains like South West trains do, with trains from Waterloo to Weymouth via Southampton and Bournemouth. This allows more trains per hour using the same number of paths out of the London terminus.

You could for example split at Leicester and run one service fast up the Erewash Valley to Sheffield, with the other 5 car unit providing an additional service to stop more often at other smaller stations such as Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway or Beeston

F Great Eastern said:

It's just that Abellio's bids tend to be a lot about marketing and what they can achieve in theory but in practice look pretty iffy because it's not as simple as it looks with numbers. You can bet your life a bid manager has seen the size of the class 180s and the number of passengers they can accommodate and that was all they used for their calculation pretty much.

Click to expand...

Most TOCs, if not all, are guilty of that ime.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd describe the EMT Sheffield and Nottingham services as a 'commuter railway' that requires large amounts of standing room. The Corby services fair enough, but the rest is covered by Thameslink. These services should be provided stock sufficient to get the vast majority of passengers seated outside disruption.

Bald Rick said:

A bit harsh, I feel. When I stand on platform 3 at St Albans each morning - with around 500 other people - all waiting for a 12 car 700 to come in that we will all spend 20-30 minutes standing on ...

Click to expand...

Sorry - it was a little bit harsh and just to clarify my comments were meant in general about Abellio rather than the services in this franchise specifically - I agree that there is no need for huge standing space on these services on EMR.

bb21 said:

Most TOCs, if not all, are guilty of that ime.

Click to expand...

Indeed but the best franchises, from a passenger view at least, tend to be the ones with a well balanced management and bid team with skills that compliment each other. At the start of new GA franchise, the majority of the senior management team were either former bid managers or finance people. Even the Engineering Director had no railway experience before taking the position, replacing a very experienced railwaywoman.

tasky said:

I'd seen it suggested that IETs couldn't meet the MML franchise spec because they don't have identical performance on diesel and electric. Some people were touting bi-mode Aventeras as more likely. Any idea what happened there?

Click to expand...

Yep. Hitachi slung another engine under the AT300 design and as if by magic, 1000 extra horses solve the performance gap!

Re the seat argument Std/F (mostly Wiki data)
222*4: 132/33
222*5: 182/50
222*7: 236/106
HST*8: 357/111
800*5: 270/45

Of course an 800 has 26m carriages, not 24m, so taking say 8 standard seats from 4 cars and 6 1st class seats from one gives an estimate for an EMR 803*5 of 231/39. To get to 50 1st class seats like a 222*5 you'd have to add about 3 rows of first and so lose maybe 4 rows of standard ie 16 seats, so maybe it will land at something like 215/51?

This is a useful but hardly game-changing increase

tasky said:

I'd seen it suggested that IETs couldn't meet the MML franchise spec because they don't have identical performance on diesel and electric. Some people were touting bi-mode Aventeras as more likely. Any idea what happened there?

Click to expand...

Hitachi bid a train with more engines in it, and made it a bit lighter...

tasky said:

I'd seen it suggested that IETs couldn't meet the MML franchise spec because they don't have identical performance on diesel and electric. Some people were touting bi-mode Aventeras as more likely. Any idea what happened there?

Click to expand...

That those people decided that because the AT300s we've seen so far couldn't meet the spec it was therefore impossible for Hitachi to adjust their platform to meet it despite not having any evidence to support such a notion? Always struck me as foolish of people to assume that...

tasky said:

I'd seen it suggested that IETs couldn't meet the MML franchise spec because they don't have identical performance on diesel and electric. Some people were touting bi-mode Aventeras as more likely. Any idea what happened there?

Click to expand...

The suggestions were just wrong? Hasn’t it always been highly likely that Hitachi could have provided a better diesel performance, if only they’d been asked to by DFT in the first place?

InTheEastMids said:

Yep. Hitachi slung another engine under the AT300 design and as if by magic, 1000 extra horses solve the performance gap!

Re the seat argument Std/F (mostly Wiki data)
222*4: 132/33
222*5: 182/50
222*7: 236/106
HST*8: 357/111
800*5: 270/45

Of course an 800 has 26m carriages, not 24m, so taking say 8 standard seats from 4 cars and 6 1st class seats from one gives an estimate for an EMR 803*5 of 231/39. To get to 50 1st class seats like a 222*5 you'd have to add about 3 rows of first and so lose maybe 4 rows of standard ie 16 seats, so maybe it will land at something like 215/51?

This is a useful but hardly game-changing increase

Click to expand...

I’m not often on peak EMTs, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen all seats taken in First. No doubt it does happen, but surely not often?

F Great Eastern said:

I agree that there is no need for huge standing space on these services on EMR.

Click to expand...

None at all ostensibly, as express services with 20 minute gaps for the first stop disallow standees in their capacity figures, so anybody standing is PIXC.

InTheEastMids said:

Yep. Hitachi slung another engine under the AT300 design and as if by magic, 1000 extra horses solve the performance gap!

Click to expand...

A quick estimate suggests a 5x24m unit with 4x940hp engines will still have a lower power to weight ratio than a 222, but not by too much. Presumably that's within 'margin of error'.
It being an AT300 bi-mode, however, with even less space underneath than an 802, running at 110+mph on diesel mode for long stretches, will almost certainly overheat and routinely run on fewer than 4 engines. What happens then remains to be seen.

InTheEastMids said:

Yep. Hitachi slung another engine under the AT300 design and as if by magic, 1000 extra horses solve the performance gap!

Re the seat argument Std/F (mostly Wiki data)
222*4: 132/33
222*5: 182/50
222*7: 236/106
HST*8: 357/111
800*5: 270/45

Of course an 800 has 26m carriages, not 24m, so taking say 8 standard seats from 4 cars and 6 1st class seats from one gives an estimate for an EMR 803*5 of 231/39. To get to 50 1st class seats like a 222*5 you'd have to add about 3 rows of first and so lose maybe 4 rows of standard ie 16 seats, so maybe it will land at something like 215/51?

This is a useful but hardly game-changing increase

Click to expand...

Bald Rick said:

Hitachi bid a train with more engines in it, and made it a bit lighter...

Click to expand...

ainsworth74 said:

That those people decided that because the AT300s we've seen so far couldn't meet the spec it was therefore impossible for Hitachi to adjust their platform to meet it despite not having any evidence to support such a notion? Always struck me as foolish of people to assume that...

Click to expand...

swt_passenger said:

The suggestions were just wrong? Hasn’t it always been highly likely that Hitachi could have provided a better diesel performance, if only they’d been asked to by DFT in the first place?

Click to expand...

Yes, it did seem quite dubious at the time. A good reminder not to believe everything I read on this forum, even if it appears well-informed!

It wasn't clear to me why a bi-mode Aventera that hadn't actually been built yet was any more likely than a tweaked IET with an existing supply chain.

tasky said:

Yes, it did seem quite dubious at the time. A good reminder not to believe everything I read on this forum, even if it appears well-informed!

It wasn't clear to me why a bi-mode Aventera that hadn't actually been built yet was any more likely than a tweaked IET with an existing supply chain.

Click to expand...

Built in Derby for EMR ticks all sorts of heartstring boxes.

InTheEastMids said:

Yep. Hitachi slung another engine under the AT300 design and as if by magic, 1000 extra horses solve the performance gap!

Re the seat argument Std/F (mostly Wiki data)
222*4: 132/33
222*5: 182/50
222*7: 236/106
HST*8: 357/111
800*5: 270/45

Of course an 800 has 26m carriages, not 24m, so taking say 8 standard seats from 4 cars and 6 1st class seats from one gives an estimate for an EMR 803*5 of 231/39. To get to 50 1st class seats like a 222*5 you'd have to add about 3 rows of first and so lose maybe 4 rows of standard ie 16 seats, so maybe it will land at something like 215/51?

This is a useful but hardly game-changing increase

Click to expand...

I suspect they'll reduce the ratio of First to Standard compared with the 222s, which were specified at a time when demand for First was much greater. Also the Bedford, Wellingborough and many of the Kettering passengers will be using the EMUs instead, reducing the loadings on the long-distance trains that currently stop there.

Bald Rick said:

Built in Derby for EMR ticks all sorts of heartstring boxes.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it really holds much sway but with the first new unit from another supplier in service this week and not a single unit of the Bombardier fleet supposed to precede them having been delivered for testing yet, I wonder if Abellio are a little less keen on Bombardier after their experiences, much like TfL. I suspect it's nothing to do with it and probably just the easy 'proven product' option but that's not the approach they used with their other bids.

Paul472426 said:

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

Click to expand...

Taking today as an example of a scheduled round trip:

08:31 London (d)
10:31 Sheffield (a)
11:07 Sheffield (d)
11:23 Sheffield (a)
12:00 Sheffield (d)
14:09 London (a)

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C89248/2019/07/30/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C85293/2019/07/30/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C89041/2019/07/30/advanced

...so that's almost ninety minutes that the train was scheduled to be in Sheffield (but unable to hog a platform for all that time, hence the short service to/from Woodburn Junction jus tot get it out of the way for a while). There are also some daytime ECS to/from Etches Park which take up units.

If everything is going to be a five coach AT300 then they can interwork the "fast" and "slow" services, thus freeing up the number of units currently waiting at St Pancras/ Nottingham/ Sheffield. Maybe not a huge number, but enough to permit a few more services to be doubled up.

rdlover777 said:

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.

Click to expand...

To be a pedantic irritant, the powers that be decided that they wouldn't allow an hourly Leeds service (which the nine coach 222s were speculatively ordered in anticipation of) rather than not permitting nine coach trains to run - I don''t think there was any problem with the train lengths, just with the idea of extending services through to West Yorkshire (which was a great shame, as it'd have meant huge numbers of additional seats on the Sheffield - Leeds corridor!)

ainsworth74 said:

That those people decided that because the AT300s we've seen so far couldn't meet the spec it was therefore impossible for Hitachi to adjust their platform to meet it despite not having any evidence to support such a notion? Always struck me as foolish of people to assume that...

Click to expand...

Yup - see also "Network Rail will have to spend eleventyone billion pounds on trimming every bridge and platform to permit AT300s to run on the GWML and ECML, given the 26m carriages"... remind me - how did those predictions fare again?

swt_passenger said:

The suggestions were just wrong? Hasn’t it always been highly likely that Hitachi could have provided a better diesel performance, if only they’d been asked to by DFT in the first place?

Click to expand...

Agreed - there's been so much criticism of AT300s not being able to match 125mph trains on diesel (e.g. when the lack of electrification in the Thames Valley meant that the new trains were trying to match HST timings on routes that were meant to be wired up) - this criticism carried on to the idea of AT300s on the MML - again, Hitachi are criticised for their trains nothing able to do something that they were never asked to - unsurprisingly, if you are prepared to pay them more for a higher specced train then they'll deliver one - I really don't see why so many people on here are so desperate to criticise the manufacturer for building trains that couldn't do something that the DfT never asked them to be able to do

(obviously not a dig at @swt_passenger!)

My main concern relates to enhanced speeds.

The 800 family have been about for some time now, and the last time I looked in the Sectional Appendix they were not permitted to run at enhanced speeds marked for HSTs. Some time ago, I looked through speeds on the GW main line, and although there were many marked for MUs, I only found one which was HST specific (on the Reading flyover), and therefore 800s not being passed for using HST speeds wasn't a problem, but a significant distance on the MML is specifically marked for HSTs; therefore, even though a variation of the 800 series is being produced which is shorter and more powerful, with the heavy bogies shown on the renderings will they be able to operate at HST speeds on the MML, and therefore match 222 point-to-point timings (which was a requirement of the ITT)?

grumpyoldman01 said:

My main concern relates to enhanced speeds.

The 800 family have been about for some time now, and the last time I looked in the Sectional Appendix they were not permitted to run at enhanced speeds marked for HSTs. Some time ago, I looked through speeds on the GW main line, and although there were many marked for MUs, I only found one which was HST specific (on the Reading flyover), and therefore 800s not being passed for using HST speeds wasn't a problem, but a significant distance on the MML is specifically marked for HSTs; therefore, even though a variation of the 800 series is being produced which is shorter and more powerful, with the heavy bogies shown on the renderings will they be able to operate at HST speeds on the MML, and therefore match 222 point-to-point timings (which was a requirement of the ITT)?

Click to expand...

HST speed differentials are more to do with braking performance than weight.
Has it actually been confirmed by anyone that these vehicles will be 24m as opposed to 26m?

Kneedown said:

Has it actually been confirmed by anyone that these vehicles will be 24m as opposed to 26m?

Click to expand...

Post #1284 quotes a Railway Gazette story. That seems to be the main source.

swt_passenger said:

Post #1284 quotes a Railway Gazette story. That seems to be the main source.

Click to expand...

24m is the only plausible option for 2 x 5 sets. Once length of coupling and some room for error is added to 260m then no MML station could handle 10 x 26m sets, including St Pancras (4 x 260m platforms). 240m~ matches 3 x 80m EMU sets that will eventually be used on Corby services.

swt_passenger said:

Post #1284 quotes a Railway Gazette story. That seems to be the main source.

Click to expand...

Found it thank you. Post #1274 though. I hope the "slightly modified nose profile" doesn't ruin the sleek lines of the existing design.

Aictos said:

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

Click to expand...

I travel from Wellingborough and two changes for a northbound service to Sheffield or even one change for what I call a local trip to Leicester is not progress. All it takes is a cancelled or late running service to totally mess up travel plans. Surely one of the Nottingham trains could have called at Wellingborough and the other Kettering.

johnw said:

I travel from Wellingborough and two changes for a northbound service to Sheffield or even one change for what I call a local trip to Leicester is not progress. All it takes is a cancelled or late running service to totally mess up travel plans. Surely one of the Nottingham trains could have called at Wellingborough and the other Kettering.

Click to expand...

Exactly, there was no need for the existing Slow Nottingham to lose any stops, this is a backwards step by EMR and it loses connectivity like you just said.

Would have liked to see a 125mph bi-mode FLIRT after the good reviews of GA Class 755. But maybe it was too costly or Stadler could not provide 125mph in diesel mode?

Aictos said:

Exactly, there was no need for the existing Slow Nottingham to lose any stops, this is a backwards step by EMR and it loses connectivity like you just said.

Click to expand...

This service currently gets full at its southern end and transferring those passengers onto the electrics is clearly a major part of the plan. Otherwise more bi-mode stock would be needed to cater for shorter journeys into London and run empty further north. The numbers of passengers between Bedford/Wellingborough and Leicester or beyond are tiny compared to those to/from London.

Having said that I do think removing the Luton Airport Parkway stop from the slow Nottingham is a bad idea. As well as providing a useful airport link which in my experience a lot of people take advantage of, this stop means that Thameslink stations further south can access Leicester and Nottingham with one change. A journey such as Leicester to St Albans will now need two changes.

Many of the replies here focus on the fleet not being of sufficient size to allow headroom for much further traffic growth. Might I suggest it is difficult to blame Abellio for making this decision? Any franchisee would have had to persuade their Rosco to order a micro fleet of customised 802s rather than the off-the-peg electric trains that would have come with full electrification, and would have had to fight for each of them, especially with odds being that at some point in the future HS2 (or full electrification) will crash this party.

The shorter trains are good for the Rosco as they can be cascaded to other routes in the future.

2 x 5 cars instead of 7 will require more crew and space will be wasted on cabs in the centre of trains.
It seems likely that the popular breakfast service will not be economic on trains made up of 2 units and this will be a sad loss.
Contrary to other posters I find first class to often be full in the mornings from Derby and now make reservations. This is after facing the choice of standing from Derby or catching the following train. I opted not to stand. It is often very busy on the returns as well.
It is looking like we are to get a poorer service to go with the longer journey times since Thameslink.