New trains for East Midlands Franchise

43096 said:

Beyond Reading that route isn’t 125mph; the MML is a 125mph railway.

Click to expand...

Most of the 125mph running is or will be under the wires though. Elsewhere, linespeed rarely exceeds 110mph.

edwin_m said:

More power might allow hills to be climbed at higher speeds, but speeds on the most hilly bits west of Newton Abbot are restricted by curvature in particular. A higher-powered train is unlikely to improve much on timings.

Click to expand...

The slightly shorter bodyshells (24m instead of 26m) may result in a small weight saving, so the same power plant as the 802s should give the new MML trains a slightly better power to weight ratio. 802s have been running on HST timings for months now and barring failures seem to be able to keep up ok. There's no doubt 222s, like 220s, have a markedly better headline power to weight ratio than the 80x series to date, but how much of this is actually used in anger? Voyager timings on XC in particular were eased markedly following the disaster of the initial Operation Princess timetable, so much so that the trains can operate perfectly satisfactorily with one engine out of service, so perhaps similar timing assumptions were used for the later MML sets.

Failed Unit said:

Which would be a brilliant plan. They could even send one to Sheffield avoiding both Nottingham and Derby if they were to split trains. But I know splitting and joining on route isn’t liked anymore. Not sure why works in many places. Yes you get late portions. But that happens now on Norwich - Liverpool where the are just dropping a set.

Click to expand...

Splitting/joining happens a lot on SWR services at a number of places including Guildford, Southampton and Salisbury.

There tends to be a good buffer built into the timetable to allow it to happen, but I've seen it done fairly quickly when the train is running late, which often involves shutting the connection for passengers at least 5 minutes out from the split and trelling them to walk down the platform to make the change.

The advantage that SWR have with this is that the 159s and the Desiros have corridor connections, whereas these '803' Hitachis don't.

The Ham said:

Splitting/joining happens a lot on SWR services at a number of places including Guildford, Southampton and Salisbury.

There tends to be a good buffer built into the timetable to allow it to happen, but I've seen it done fairly quickly when the train is running late, which often involves shutting the connection for passengers at least 5 minutes out from the split and trelling them to walk down the platform to make the change.

Click to expand...

Lots of splitting/joining on Southern too at places like Hayward’s Heath and Horsham. If this can take place regularly on the busy Brighton Mainline why not on the MML.

If they decide on 2 x 5-car sets in multiple, then this could achieve the required capacity south of Bedford which is limited by track capacity and by splitting at Leicester, it could offer an enhanced timetable in the Midlands and North.

Express off St.Pancras to Sheffield. Split at Leicester, forward section taking the direct route through Toton yard. The rear section continuing via Derby. Allowing extra stops at Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway for one of the units.
Express off St.Pancras to Nottingham. Split at Nottingham, with forward section continuing to Lincoln providing an hourly service from the Capital (albeit via Nottingham).

And the Corby electrics serving Luton and Luton Airport Parkway with interchange at Kettering for the North.
Luton Airport Parkway retaining the semi-fast to Nottingham.
Whatever timetable is eventually produced, it must aim to offer a 30 minute interval service for most stations.

I suggested something like this a few pages back (or it may have been on one of the other EMR threads). Response was that the franchise is required to run 4TPH between London and Leicester.

The Ham said:

Splitting/joining happens a lot on SWR services at a number of places including Guildford, Southampton and Salisbury.

There tends to be a good buffer built into the timetable to allow it to happen, but I've seen it done fairly quickly when the train is running late, which often involves shutting the connection for passengers at least 5 minutes out from the split and trelling them to walk down the platform to make the change.

Click to expand...

The latter part (shutting the corridor connection) won't be an issue for the 80x stock, at least.

edwin_m said:

I suggested something like this a few pages back (or it may have been on one of the other EMR threads). Response was that the franchise is required to run 4TPH between London and Leicester.

Click to expand...

That's still fine though isn't it? If all of those 4TPH were formed of 2 x 5 car units and all were to split/join at Leicester, you'd be able to operate up to 8 different services North of Leicester.....if only enough units had been ordered in the first place.

Why do none of the TOCs (Train Operating Companies) ever seem to get the amount of rolling stock required and in the right configuration, right?
5 car units are not enough for most services, and if some services are going to be run as regular 10 car sets , then have a number of 10 car sets built.
It's ok attaching and detaching sets en-route to different destinations but after a while when these services demands out-way the capacity there is nowhere to go but cram people in again and short formations.

Look at XC (Cross Country) for example. A failure right from the start under Virgin/Stagecoach, but wasn't helped when XC & VTWC were then split and VT got 20 x Class 221s for West Coast use and the XC services were already well under capacity with 4 & 5 car Class 220/221s plus half a dozen HSTs. Look how there services struggle now as i'm sure a lot of you have found out on your travels.
The government and the DfT has not helped by faffing about and postponing the XC franchise process. They need extra capacity like yesterday, and in 3 years time when Class 222s are available or even maybe Class 221s ex West Coast if the WCP (West Coast Partnership) ever comes to fruition, is just too far away.

Unbelievable the amount of years the railways in Britain have now been privatised, seeing ever increasing numbers of passenger even with extortionate fares but never seem to get it quite right, then a couple of years down the line, were back to square one with overcrowding and short formed trains because they haven't enough capacity and have to spread resources out.

Virgin West Coast a prime example.
8 car Class 390 Pendolinos from new, 4 first class & 4 standard class (crazy mix at the time), then all made into 9 car, 4 first class & 5 standard class. Then Virgin/Stagecoach wanted all 11 cars, but the "Computer says No", sorry the DfT says No, so 35 sets 11 cars, 4 first class & 7 standard and the other 21 sets still 9 car, 4 first class & 5 standard, still not enough capacity at times so 1 first class coach on all 9 cars sets converted to standard, giving a final 3 first class & 6 standard class coaches on 9 car sets.
This now can cause lots of problems when Class 390 sets have to be swapped around on routes for varying reasons.

Let's not even go into the Class 221s which can be way short on capacity at times, especially covering Scottish diagrams, even some of the Chester services especially in holiday time as now can be way near capacity. The service i was on today, a single Class 221, 1330 ex Chester (from Holyhead) to Euston was near to full on departing Chester and had plenty to pick up at Crewe & Nuneaton. Maybe not the norm but just shows how capacity is soon used up.

I just think once again that East Midlands have got it wrong, with not enough sets and not the right number of vehicles per set and are the Hitachi Bi-modes the right unit for the job? I'm not sure.

These are just my thoughts and i do think there getting it wrong again!!

Does anyone know whether with a bit of timetabling magic these will be able to run in 10 car formations on existing routes?

Perhaps 5 car express services and 10 car local? I don't know which ones get used more heavily, as I usually use the local stopping services on the North of the route.

Jozhua said:

Does anyone know whether with a bit of timetabling magic these will be able to run in 10 car formations on existing routes?

Click to expand...

Maybe the future service is envisioned as a high frequency 5 car railway but coupling up into 10 car blockbusters so as make best use of paths in the section shared with Thameslink?

EE Andy b1 said:

A failure right from the start under Virgin/Stagecoach, but wasn't helped when XC & VTWC were then split and VT got 20 x Class 221s for West Coast use and the XC services were already well under capacity with 4 & 5 car Class 220/221s plus half a dozen HSTs. Look how there services struggle now as i'm sure a lot of you have found out on your travels.

Click to expand...

Other than the units displaced by the HSTs, the Class 221s that went to WC were just the units already used on Euston to North Wales and Birmingham / Manchester to Scotland services which passed from XC operation to WC so were not part of the fleet needed to operate the remaining XC network. You could argue that WC got an unfair share of the 5-cars but they needed the tilt facility. Maybe if all the 220 fleet had been 5-car it wouldn't have been such a problem.

Back in topic, the 5-car length for EM is dictated by St Pancras - many EM trains are currently 5-car and not overcrowded. A uniform fleet should help with maximising its use.

New post regarding this on my site. Thoughts appreciated, so I can add to any opinions.

I personally would have preferred FLIRT trains from Stadler, but I’m a fan of the Class 800 design, albeit not the way they have been introduced across some areas!

DenmarkRail said:

New post regarding this on my site. Thoughts appreciated, so I can add to any opinions.

I personally would have preferred FLIRT trains from Stadler, but I’m a fan of the Class 800 design, albeit not the way they have been introduced across some areas!

Click to expand...

Did Stadler offer an achievable product that will attain 125mph in both electric and diesel mode, in time equal to, or quicker than a 222? Stadlers bi-mode utilises a "pod" in the middle of the train. What would be the impact of this on capacity, and restricted platform lengths? Did Stadler offer a variant with two sets of passenger doors per side per carriage?

JonathanH said:

Back in topic, the 5-car length for EM is dictated by St Pancras - many EM trains are currently 5-car and not overcrowded. A uniform fleet should help with maximising its use.

Click to expand...

I think the argument is that 5 car trains are fine, just that there isn't enough of them to cope with peak times and future passenger growth! The current 222 fleet does still fill up quite a bit and passenger numbers are expected to grow.

JonathanH said:

Back in topic, the 5-car length for EM is dictated by St Pancras - many EM trains are currently 5-car and not overcrowded. A uniform fleet should help with maximising its use.

Click to expand...

Who says they are not overcrowded?

Many of the 5 car EM trains I have been on have been overcrowded at the London end of the route and I've had to sit on the floor with plenty of others crammed in a vestibule just outside the toilet, and seeing people sitting in a luggage rack is a regular occurence at the London end. Hence why new longer electric trains are being supplied for the Corby route with extra stops to free up capacity on the more longer distance trains. In fact the only ones I have been on that have not been regularly overcrowded are the Nottingham off peaks operated by a longer HST. These will get very busy too, if they will be only 5 cars in future.

Kettledrum said:

Who says they are not overcrowded?

Click to expand...

Many services may be overcrowded - I wouldn't deny that - many are not.

5-car has been sufficient for almost all of the times I have been on a 222 but typically that is typically against peak flows. I hope they will run 10-car on those where a 5-car is not enough.

You make the key point that the Corby service will hopefully make capacity at the London end fit better to demand.

I have had many experiences on the 222 in my year of commuting and miscellaneous journeys, of many being full and standing, and I fear the same problem faced on these happening to the newly introduced trains that are replacing the 222s.

Notably the 16:27 and the 16:52 from Loughborough to London St. Pancras, both 5-car 222s, that are beyond capacity with passengers standing in the aisle. Worse on Fridays as people also have luggage. Some have resulted to standing in first class. Without a reservation, I can garunteed I'll be standing on my journey to London unless I can strategically stand in the center of a carriage and hope people get off in Leicester, 10 minutes from Loughborough. Should these trains be doubled up, I don't see how the load can be shared between the two without a gangway. The 16:24 only has two stops so there isn't much opportunity to switch trains, that is hoping the other isn't as busy.

That is my biggest problem with joined trains with no gangway. As mentioned by others who seem to have had similar experiences - I haven't been on a HST on the Midland Mainline without a seat - ever.

I do hope some of these trains to be introduced can be lengthened.

Laketop said:

I have had many experiences on the 222 in my year of commuting and miscellaneous journeys, of many being full and standing, and I fear the same problem faced on these happening to the newly introduced trains that are replacing the 222s.

Notably the 16:27 and the 16:52 from Loughborough to London St. Pancras, both 5-car 222s, that are beyond capacity with passengers standing in the aisle. Worse on Fridays as people also have luggage. Some have resulted to standing in first class. Without a reservation, I can garunteed I'll be standing on my journey to London unless I can strategically stand in the center of a carriage and hope people get off in Leicester, 10 minutes from Loughborough. Should these trains be doubled up, I don't see how the load can be shared between the two without a gangway. The 16:24 only has two stops so there isn't much opportunity to switch trains, that is hoping the other isn't as busy.

That is my biggest problem with joined trains with no gangway. As mentioned by others who seem to have had similar experiences - I haven't been on a HST on the Midland Mainline without a seat - ever.

I do hope some of these trains to be introduced can be lengthened.

Click to expand...

Those who travel regularly will know which half of the train is likely to be busier and so will position themselves accordingly.

Even if that result in just 10% being in the other set (& given people pre booking seats will be allocated seats in both units the figure will likely be higher, especially if the booking engine is required to mostly book seats into the quieter half first if things continue to be a problem) that's probably enough to remove the worst of the overcrowding, with the booking engine able to remove the rest with the way it allocates seats.

The Ham said:

Those who travel regularly will know which half of the train is likely to be busier and so will position themselves accordingly.

Even if that result in just 10% being in the other set (& given people pre booking seats will be allocated seats in both units the figure will likely be higher, especially if the booking engine is required to mostly book seats into the quieter half first if things continue to be a problem) that's probably enough to remove the worst of the overcrowding, with the booking engine able to remove the rest with the way it allocates seats.

Click to expand...

The MML has been historically unable to keep its train formations the same way round. Usually the units themselves are in the correct order when coupled together, but either unit can have First Class north or south. Having two coupled units may actually make this better, as you can't be more than five coaches from where you expected to be! Also both Nottingham and Leicester have entrances at the extreme London end of the platforms, as obviously does St Pancras, so particularly on Nottingham services the loadings are likely to be quite uneven.

Definitely think putting the reserved seats away from the London end for services departing there is a good move!

I honestly think there's plenty of ways round uneven crowding in a 10-car unit, just concerned they won't run like that very often...

Other than that I have to say I saw an AT-300 801 at Leeds yesterday and it was a beautiful unit, I don't know what I like about the aesthetics so much, just looks very industrial but also modern. Also call me weird, but I like the look of the cables between the coaches...

JonathanH said:

Many services may be overcrowded - I wouldn't deny that - many are not.

5-car has been sufficient for almost all of the times I have been on a 222 but typically that is typically against peak flows. I hope they will run 10-car on those where a 5-car is not enough.

You make the key point that the Corby service will hopefully make capacity at the London end fit better to demand.

Click to expand...

There are very few routes where travel against peak or during extreme hours would not bring the impression that capacity is sufficient. To suggest that the current length of trains is sufficient when never travelling at peak times is like suggesting that the M25 is always free-flowing based on journeys at 2am.

Qwerty133 said:

There are very few routes where travel against peak or during extreme hours would not bring the impression that capacity is sufficient. To suggest that the current length of trains is sufficient when never travelling at peak times is like suggesting that the M25 is always free-flowing based on journeys at 2am.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree but your argument supports the point that you run 10 car trains at peak times and put some of them in sidings at other times of the day to run 5-cars when that is enough which seems to be the plan.

MarkyT said:

The slightly shorter bodyshells (24m instead of 26m) may result in a small weight saving, so the same power plant as the 802s should give the new MML trains a slightly better power to weight ratio. 802s have been running on HST timings for months now and barring failures seem to be able to keep up ok. There's no doubt 222s, like 220s, have a markedly better headline power to weight ratio than the 80x series to date, but how much of this is actually used in anger? Voyager timings on XC in particular were eased markedly following the disaster of the initial Operation Princess timetable, so much so that the trains can operate perfectly satisfactorily with one engine out of service, so perhaps similar timing assumptions were used for the later MML sets.

Click to expand...

GWML timings are very slack - and this is seen in the new timetable. We know for instance that an 802 accelerating from rest to 125mph over 10 miles is about a minute quicker than an HST. But that's it! as both trains run at the same maximum speed of 125mph, the only further time gain is from the next station stop, or from low speed restrictions. But try and explain why from the December timetable Paddington to Reading will now be only 22 mins with no recovery time minutes as opposed to 25 minutes currently inclusive of 1 minute recovery time! In essence, HST's could easily meet a 23 minute timing with no issues en route, and 22.5 min is possible! But 800's on diesel couldn't do that - and with engines out - you are looking at 26 minute+!!!

On to the Midland and interesting to note that the Railway Performance society analysed HST and Class 222 running over the MML on 2 consecutive years following the 125mph upgrades and found that the MML schedules for 222's and HST's were very tight and demanded flat-out running!

It was noted that many trains rarely met the schedules despite being driven hard! In summer 2014 there were a lot of TSR's on the Midland and that seemed to be to blame, but a year later when most of these had been removed, the analysis was, and I quote:

"still insufficient net recovery for tsrs, or performance allowance for minor unscheduled events, to maintain a reliable timetable!!"
And I'm not aware the timetable has been tweaked significantly since that analysis took place. So anyone believing that 222's and HST's drivers on the MML are dilly dallying trying to dissipate excess time are grossly mistaken.
There is no chance a Class 802 in diesel mode being able to easily keep time on an HST schedule north of Bedford, and definitely not Class 222 timings. That is why the extra powered vehicle has been asked for!

edwin_m said:

The MML has been historically unable to keep its train formations the same way round.

Click to expand...

Which is for the simple reason that services to Sheffield/Leeds can run via Derby or with a reversal at Nottingham and a set arriving at Etches Park can be turned if starts from Nottingham the next day.

Railperf said:

GWML timings are very slack - and this is seen in the new timetable. We know for instance that an 802 accelerating from rest to 125mph over 10 miles is about a minute quicker than an HST. But that's it! as both trains run at the same maximum speed of 125mph, the only further time gain is from the next station stop, or from low speed restrictions. But try and explain why from the December timetable Paddington to Reading will now be only 22 mins with no recovery time minutes as opposed to 25 minutes currently inclusive of 1 minute recovery time! In essence, HST's could easily meet a 23 minute timing with no issues en route, and 22.5 min is possible! But 800's on diesel couldn't do that - and with engines out - you are looking at 26 minute+!!!

Click to expand...

On the GWML HST timings, some "door not closed" resolution allowance was presumably built in? If so that can theoretically be stripped out...

In reality it is useful for soaking up other issues too.

Hi guys, I'm new here so be kind... Ive been a long time lurker.
Wondered if the class 360s on Corby services will run as 12 car units? If so I take it wellingborough/Kettering and Corby will need platforms extentions.

Will the class 360s get a completely refurbished interior replacing 3+2 seating?

Will the new IEPs just replace the HSTs? And finally how long do you think EMR will be needing a derogation for the HSTs?

DogsOnTrains said:

Will the new IEPs just replace the HSTs?

Click to expand...

From my understanding, the IETs will replace both the HSTs and the Class 222 Meridian units.

NewSt said:

From my understanding, the IETs will replace both the HSTs and the Class 222 Meridian units.

Click to expand...

I've read in this thread that people don't think 33 units will be enough. Don't want to bring back an old argument but surely they should be future proofing by providing more units.

Class 222s aren't that old, where do you all think they will go? Cross Country? (Dunno if already discusses, I'm new)