"East Midlands: a Railway for Growth" report published 16/09/2016

[ashworth]

There's been so much discussion about what may happen by 2020, 2023 etc with the London services but what about the timescale with the non London East Midlands services?

Right from the beginning of the current EMT franchise there has been a big problem regarding shortage of stock and capacity problems on the rest of their network. Much of this has not been the fault of EMT who have done a good job with limited resources. However, I think they did get a raw deal when Central Trains stock was split up, especially in the early days with the lack of stock to run the Liverpool to Norwich route. This has now greatly improved with the refurbishment of the 158's and mostly 4 carriages between Nottingham and Liverpool. However, although 2 carriages are usually more than enough between Nottingham and Norwich off peak, some peak time and weekend services to from Norwich are very overcrowded.

Will there be any solution to the severe overcrowding on the Skegness route in the next few years?
What about the appalling sparse service operated by single 153's between Lincoln and Grimsby?
Peterborough-Spalding-Sleaford-Lincoln needs more than a single 153 at many times of the day and a better evening and weekend service.
Lincoln to Doncaster could be improved.
Derby-Stoke-Crewe has really been downgraded and neglected over the years and again regularly operated with a single 153 unit. Surely this should run through to Nottingham?

What new or extra stock is going to be available for these services by 2020. I've not really heard of much progress on this.

 

[LowLevel]

My money would be on watching those 156s from Anglia and ScotRail, though of course I could be wrong.

I also don't believe Liverpool - Norwich will split, or at least will survive in some form, so there's lots of questions to be answered really! The number of through passengers just seems to increase.

 

[edwin_m]

My money would be on watching those 156s from Anglia and ScotRail, though of course I could be wrong.

I also don't believe Liverpool - Norwich will split, or at least will survive in some form, so there's lots of questions to be answered really! The number of through passengers just seems to increase.

I'm inclined to agree. A further batch of 156s would be ideal, to get rid of the 153s and release some of the 158s that currently do short distance work to strengthen Norwich-Liverpool and elsewhere. It will probably need to go to 6-car west of Nottingham on peak workings sometime soon, and I think the platforms are generally long enough but probably not for the peak-time stops in the Hope Valley.

 

[LowLevel]

The EMT and Anglia 156 refurb spec is also pretty much identical bar seat covers (though none of the EMT units have been done yet and aren't due to start any time soon - 158s first which takes it up to 2018!).

Liverpool - Norwich problem stations are Warrington Central, Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway which are 4 car (Widnes) or 5 car max. I believe extension plans are in place for most of them though. Some of the Hope Valley and other stations also pose an issue (Chinley, Dore and Dronfield) in that while others have short platforms, where required local door working isn't a problem due to lower passenger numbers. Local door at those few stops would be a nightmare as the trains pick up and set down large numbers of people.

 

[contractador]

I'm inclined to agree. A further batch of 156s would be ideal, to get rid of the 153s and release some of the 158s that currently do short distance work to strengthen Norwich-Liverpool and elsewhere. It will probably need to go to 6-car west of Nottingham on peak workings sometime soon, and I think the platforms are generally long enough but probably not for the peak-time stops in the Hope Valley.

Would the Anglia 156 be enough to replace the 153s though? More or less they'd be about 2 units better off overall which doesn't seem a lot given the scale of current and future overcrowding in the report. Would they be better receiving the 156 in addition to keeping 153s or perhaps even receiving the Anglia 153s as well?

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm inclined to agree. A further batch of 156s would be ideal, to get rid of the 153s and release some of the 158s that currently do short distance work to strengthen Norwich-Liverpool and elsewhere. It will probably need to go to 6-car west of Nottingham on peak workings sometime soon, and I think the platforms are generally long enough but probably not for the peak-time stops in the Hope Valley.

Four cars are looking increasingly busier on the evening peaks, I get the first EMT from Dore so never see the later morning peaks. Five cars would be ideal over the next few years, but that would of course mean swapping some 2 and 3 car units between TOCs which is never going to happen. If only we had one TOC nationally haha

The first EMT of the day could probably stay as a four car, do we know what Chinley can fit in terms of units ? The two evening peak services call there, plus I think, at least one more of the morning peak services above the one I catch.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There's been so much discussion about what may happen by 2020, 2023 etc with the London services but what about the timescale with the non London East Midlands services?

Right from the beginning of the current EMT franchise there has been a big problem regarding shortage of stock and capacity problems on the rest of their network. Much of this has not been the fault of EMT who have done a good job with limited resources. However, I think they did get a raw deal when Central Trains stock was split up, especially in the early days with the lack of stock to run the Liverpool to Norwich route. This has now greatly improved with the refurbishment of the 158's and mostly 4 carriages between Nottingham and Liverpool. However, although 2 carriages are usually more than enough between Nottingham and Norwich off peak, some peak time and weekend services to from Norwich are very overcrowded.

Will there be any solution to the severe overcrowding on the Skegness route in the next few years?
What about the appalling sparse service operated by single 153's between Lincoln and Grimsby?
Peterborough-Spalding-Sleaford-Lincoln needs more than a single 153 at many times of the day and a better evening and weekend service.
Lincoln to Doncaster could be improved.
Derby-Stoke-Crewe has really been downgraded and neglected over the years and again regularly operated with a single 153 unit. Surely this should run through to Nottingham?

What new or extra stock is going to be available for these services by 2020. I've not really heard of much progress on this.

Where's the like button? Thank you. Saved me doing all that typing. But while we are at it, I suppose there is no mention of Burton-Leicester in that report?

 

[Class 170101]

If you mean via Coalville, unfortunately no.

 

[devinier]

The EMT and Anglia 156 refurb spec is also pretty much identical bar seat covers (though none of the EMT units have been done yet and aren't due to start any time soon - 158s first which takes it up to 2018!).

Liverpool - Norwich problem stations are Warrington Central, Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway which are 4 car (Widnes) or 5 car max. I believe extension plans are in place for most of them though. Some of the Hope Valley and other stations also pose an issue (Chinley, Dore and Dronfield) in that while others have short platforms, where required local door working isn't a problem due to lower passenger numbers. Local door at those few stops would be a nightmare as the trains pick up and set down large numbers of people.

One answer could be to use stock with SDO capability (the 185 argument again...) between Notts and Liverpool. Perhaps they could obtain enough bi modes to allow some 222's reformed as 6 cars, to be used on Liverpools ?

 

[LowLevel]

It's possible to fit SDO to 158s, SWT units have it, but whether it's worth the investment is questionable.

 

[bunnahabhain]

One answer could be to use stock with SDO capability (the 185 argument again...) between Notts and Liverpool. Perhaps they could obtain enough bi modes to allow some 222's reformed as 6 cars, to be used on Liverpools ?

A six car 222 formation wouldn't have a huge increase in seating capacity over a set of 158s and would drastically reduce cycle capacity by at least half, on some of our services such as the 0521 Notts-lime Street Hope Valley Stopper you regularly get four or more bikes travelling from the Hope Valley so you'd be making their lives and the guards life much harder.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think options of 67+Mk4, 68+442 or anything else are viable as they probably couldn't match the existing HST schedules so would result in a worsening of service until completion of electrification. Corby electrification will free up a handful of Meridians, giving scope to reinforce certain services to handle growth prior to electrification.

I would suggest that loco hauling may be viable, although it would depend on the length of the unit, as if it had a better acceleration curve than the current HSTs then the journey time may not be that much slower (especially as there would be no need to allow for doors being left open).

For instance, running loco(s) plus 5 or 6 mark 4s which are used to replace existing services run by 5 coach 222s which are then used in pairs (or singly where demand allows) to replace the HSTs.

Alternatively, a slightly more out there option could be to run pairs of 185s if they could be allowed to run at 110mph, than the slightly lower top speed could be offset by the better acceleration than the HSTs.

I would also point out that just a single extra 222 could benefit several services over a few diagrams, so 3 or 4 units released by replacement by EMU could have a significant impact over the whole day.

For instance you release a 5 coach, this can be swapped with a 4 coach (whatever it is doing), the 4 coach can then be paired with a 5 coach and that train can then swap duties with a 7 coach. All three diagrams (each of which can run several services over a day) see a small increase in capacity just by the introduction of one extra unit.

The benefit can be enhanced even further if the lengthened service is shortened at a point along the route where capacity allows. In doing so the extra unit runs in service again to the south sooner than if it had to go all the way to the northern end of the route.

if three units are released then that is at least 9 diagrams, which could be quite a significant proportion of all services seeing a benefit. Bearing in mind that the number of spares doesn't increase (so no need for them to see an improvement in capacity) and that some services are already run as pairs (so may already have suitable capacity).

 

[edwin_m]

For instance, running loco(s) plus 5 or 6 mark 4s which are used to replace existing services run by 5 coach 222s which are then used in pairs (or singly where demand allows) to replace the HSTs.

For that to happen the loco-hauled would have to match the performance of the 222s, which are significantly better accelerating than the HSTs and the five-car ones in particular make more stops. The brochure says that other options would not meet the existing schedules and since EMT is obviously behind it they have a lot more credibility than I ever would.

Alternatively, a slightly more out there option could be to run pairs of 185s if they could be allowed to run at 110mph, than the slightly lower top speed could be offset by the better acceleration than the HSTs.

That might work if the 185s can be stretched to 110mph, a big "if" in my view as the hydraulic transmission would need modifying and this could reduce acceleration at lower speeds. Power:weight ratio is less than that of a 222 and the transmission is less efficient too.

I would also point out that just a single extra 222 could benefit several services over a few diagrams, so 3 or 4 units released by replacement by EMU could have a significant impact over the whole day.

A single 222 would be one diagram but it could be several journeys. However the MML has several HSTs standing at Cricklewood between the peaks, so obviously not short of stock in total just in the peak periods. So an extra unit would probably only result in two more revenue journeys each day.

 

[The Ham]

For that to happen the loco-hauled would have to match the performance of the 222s, which are significantly better accelerating than the HSTs and the five-car ones in particular make more stops. The brochure says that other options would not meet the existing schedules and since EMT is obviously behind it they have a lot more credibility than I ever would.

That might work if the 185s can be stretched to 110mph, a big "if" in my view as the hydraulic transmission would need modifying and this could reduce acceleration at lower speeds. Power:weight ratio is less than that of a 222 and the transmission is less efficient too.

A single 222 would be one diagram but it could be several journeys. However the MML has several HSTs standing at Cricklewood between the peaks, so obviously not short of stock in total just in the peak periods. So an extra unit would probably only result in two more revenue journeys each day.

I wasn't talking about the extra unit being used to run extra services, in which case what you are saying would have been correct about it only benefiting two services a day. Rather that the extra units are used to strengthen a service which would allow up to two other services to be strengthened. In which case the extra capacity, for each unit released, would be on three services.

Service A - Currently a 5 coach 222 replaced with a new EMU; number of seats dependent on EMU used

Service 1 - Currently a service run with 4 coach and 5 coach 222s the released 5 coach from service A replaces the 4 coach unit; number of seats goes up from 421 to 480 (14% increase)

Service 2 - Currently a service run with a 5 coach 222, replaced by 7 coach 222 from service 3; number of seats goes up from 240 to 338 (40% increase)

Service 3 - Currently a service run with a 7 coach 222, replaced by 4 coach 222 from service 1 and 5 coach unit from service 2; number of seats goes up from 338 to 421 (24% increase)

Over services 1 to 3 the average increase in capacity is 24% plus whatever extra is provided on the Corby services being run by EMU. Of course if the Corby train is a different unit length then it would alter the outcome, with a 4 coach only benefiting 2 other services and a 7 coach also benefiting 3 services.

If capacity is only an issue during the peaks, then any alteration in timetables due to running loco and Mark 4's could be limited to relatively few services. The introduction of any new units, assuming that they are bimodal, could result in the locos and Mark 4's being in use for a matter of months - say 10 months between late 2019 and mid 2020. If it is that or spend loads on making the HSTs compliant and/or paying over the odds to get the new trains quickly then I know which is I was the TOC I would prefer to do.

 

[edwin_m]

Corby electrification will squeeze out three five-car 222s I think, although it will require extra paths to increase the overall frequency and more at the peak times when a train currently splits at Kettering. However you slice and dice it that's 15 cars' worth of capacity southbound from north of Kettering in the AM peak and northbound in the PM. Given the HSTs that are idle in the interpeak the extra capacity at other times won't actually be useable. There will of course also be significant extra capacity at stations served directly by the Corby service.

 

[Class 66's]

Could Mk 4s work with HST power cars?

ETS differences I'm afraid. I think HSTs provide 415V 3 phase ETS supply, compared to 1000V? supply for Mk4. To make it work would require uneconomical electrical changes I suspect. Sorry.

 

[yorksrob]

I see in "Rail" that EMT has launched the above report urging greater investment. Points are :

More trains for Regional services, particularly between Matlock, Derby and Nottingham, Derby and Crewe, Crewe and Grimsby, Lincoln and Grimsby, Nottingham and Worksop and the Skegness line - From what I've heard on here, this is long overdue and sensible.

Better connections between the East Midlands and Manchester/Liverpool to encourage modal shift - I heartily agree with this one and say that the best way to do this would be reinstating the direct link between Matlock and Chinley. EMT and it's stakeholders should be agitating for this.

Additional track between Bedford, Kettering and Corby - probably useful for future growth and resilience.

They also argue for replacement of HST's with bi-modes before full electrification, rather than life extension. Not surprisingly, I feel this would be a bit of a waste and that they may as well concentrate on getting the full electric fleet in place for when the wires are completed. Better to have the 125's a little longer than to go off half cocked.

Any thoughts ?

 

[DeeGee]

More trains for [...] Crewe and Grimsby,

Any trains for that route would be nice. I'm always happy to see trains available for me to use to get from Grimsby to anywhere else in the country.

I'd prefer a clockface timetable to Lincoln and Newark, though, rather than a new route across the country

 

[Failed Unit]

I think we had another thread on something similar but my 2p on Lincolnshire

Some changes could be done with minimal disruption. For example.

Peterborough- Lincoln. This could be made clockface with the stock they have taking line speed improvements into consideration. I know this will result in some quick turn arounds but this timetable has not altered since CT.
Grimsby - Newark.
Some dreadful connections and again this could be a clockface 2 hour service with 2 units. Why this route wasn't revised when the east coast clock face happened we will never know.

2 coaches would be nice, but a lot of scope to improve with what they have. The problem is if that stimulates growth the single cars won't cope.

 

[yorksrob]

Any trains for that route would be nice. I'm always happy to see trains available for me to use to get from Grimsby to anywhere else in the country.

I'd prefer a clockface timetable to Lincoln and Newark, though, rather than a new route across the country

Yes, the improvements in to the local services should be a priority aside from the main line electrification.

In defence of my proposed new route, it's a lot shorter, and has a lot more infrastructure already in place than certain other new routes across country

It also has a local tourism potential !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It seems to be a vision of the future by EMT (ie Stagecoach) and its local "stakeholders", a bit like "Norwich in 90".
While nicely presented, there's no guarantee that it will influence the DfT in its plans to re-bid the franchise next year (winner declared March 2018 on the current schedule).
Virgin produced several road-maps for the West Cost franchise over the years, and the DfT ignored all of them.

It will be down to the bidders to put up rolling stock plans for consideration.
If the DfT is following current practice it won't be prescriptive in the ITT.
At the same time the impact on Cross Country is inescapable (ie cascading of 222s).
Post-refranchise, I doubt any new stock could be delivered before 2020, and it then depends on what the wiring plans are.

 

[yorksrob]

I think we had another thread on something similar but my 2p on Lincolnshire

Some changes could be done with minimal disruption. For example.

Peterborough- Lincoln. This could be made clockface with the stock they have taking line speed improvements into consideration. I know this will result in some quick turn arounds but this timetable has not altered since CT.
Grimsby - Newark.
Some dreadful connections and again this could be a clockface 2 hour service with 2 units. Why this route wasn't revised when the east coast clock face happened we will never know.

2 coaches would be nice, but a lot of scope to improve with what they have. The problem is if that stimulates growth the single cars won't cope.

The additional rolling stock on these routes seems an absolute must. I wonder whether Anglia's replacement programme will yield any sprinters in time to satisfy the scope of this report.

 

[A0wen]

Better connections between the East Midlands and Manchester/Liverpool to encourage modal shift - I heartily agree with this one and say that the best way to do this would be reinstating the direct link between Matlock and Chinley. EMT and it's stakeholders should be agitating for this.

That one won't happen and arguably isn't necessary.

If you take East Midlands to mean Leicester, Nottingham and Derby then there are cheaper and easier ways to achieve this, some of which they are already touching on e.g. increase frequency between Derby & Crewe.

They are also probably looking at capacity on the Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester services.

The problems with reinstating Matlock - Chinley are:

- expensive
- low BCR
- doesn't serve many places of importance
- you already have capacity constraints / congestion on the network on the south side of Manchester which this would exacerbate. And don't go suggesting reinstate Fallowfield, because that would just move the problem.

Project Rio proved that the demand between Manchester and Leicester isn't that great - those HSTs were carting a lot of fresh air around.

 

[yorksrob]

I think we had another thread on something similar but my 2p on Lincolnshire

Some changes could be done with minimal disruption. For example.

Peterborough- Lincoln. This could be made clockface with the stock they have taking line speed improvements into consideration. I know this will result in some quick turn arounds but this timetable has not altered since CT.
Grimsby - Newark.
Some dreadful connections and again this could be a clockface 2 hour service with 2 units. Why this route wasn't revised when the east coast clock face happened we will never know.

2 coaches would be nice, but a lot of scope to improve with what they have. The problem is if that stimulates growth the single cars won't cope.

That one won't happen and arguably isn't necessary.

If you take East Midlands to mean Leicester, Nottingham and Derby then there are cheaper and easier ways to achieve this, some of which they are already touching on e.g. increase frequency between Derby & Crewe.

They are also probably looking at capacity on the Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester services.

The problems with reinstating Matlock - Chinley are:

- expensive
- low BCR
- doesn't serve many places of importance
- you already have capacity constraints / congestion on the network on the south side of Manchester which this would exacerbate. And don't go suggesting reinstate Fallowfield, because that would just move the problem.

Project Rio proved that the demand between Manchester and Leicester isn't that great - those HSTs were carting a lot of fresh air around.

As I understand it, Project Rio services didn't have much in the way of advance fares, so it was a bit unrealistic to expect a public used to advance fares to suddenly take to expensive flexible fares. It's also worth noting that NW/EM flow development is a stated ambition in the report, so with long term marketing could be expanded.

South Manchester capacity is an issue, however as I understand it, the Chinley direction does at least have two routes in to Manchester, whereas via Derby - Crewe, you only have one route via Stockport which is full of pendolino's.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Project Rio proved that the demand between Manchester and Leicester isn't that great - those HSTs were carting a lot of fresh air around.

Project Rio proved that the demand between Manchester and Leicester wasn't that great nearly fourteen years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

22x to XC, complete new fleet of bi-modes for EMT.

Then, when electrification is all done, bi-modes to XC and 22x to razor blades, the lot of them. For units that are less than 20 years old they are knackered.

You could do an interior gut and rebuild to solve many of the issues (e.g. faulty reservation system, smelly bogs, bad seating) but large-engine non-bimode diesels are not the future, and there comes a point where you have to cut your losses.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Better connections between the East Midlands and Manchester/Liverpool to encourage modal shift - I heartily agree with this one and say that the best way to do this would be reinstating the direct link between Matlock and Chinley. EMT and it's stakeholders should be agitating for this.

That one won't happen and arguably isn't necessary.

If you take East Midlands to mean Leicester, Nottingham and Derby then there are cheaper and easier ways to achieve this, some of which they are already touching on e.g. increase frequency between Derby & Crewe.

They are also probably looking at capacity on the Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester services.

The problems with reinstating Matlock - Chinley are:

- expensive
- low BCR
- doesn't serve many places of importance
- you already have capacity constraints / congestion on the network on the south side of Manchester which this would exacerbate. And don't go suggesting reinstate Fallowfield, because that would just move the problem.

Project Rio proved that the demand between Manchester and Leicester isn't that great - those HSTs were carting a lot of fresh air around.

In addition the Peak (National) Park authorities have consistently shown a complete lack of interest (at best!) in any sort of significant development that would entail construction work. So in spite of the obvious traffic problems in their area, which are arguably even worse than in the Lake District, they have been opposed to not only any relieving road schemes but also the rather minor moves by Peak Rail to provide an alternative transport offering. In short I do not believe re-opening of Matlock to Chinley or Buxton will ever happen, much as I would like to see it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if there is significant Manchester-Leicester demand, I don't see why changing at Sheffield or Nuneaton is all that much of an issue.

 

[Failed Unit]

Won't we have a lot of 156s available in a couple of years once Northern and Scotrail get thier new fleets. Very jam tomorrow as these routes need 2 coach trains today. But I think we will see surplus 156s before Anglia's come along.

Be nice to rid the area of 153s but the 153 is still a useful tool if 3 car formations are needed, which they are.

East Midlands local routes seem to have done badly out of privatisation. Compare Lincolnshire to Cornwall many lines in Lincolnshire has less trains than the did pre-privatesector whereas similar lines in Cornwall have had massive improvements.

 

[A0wen]

As I understand it, Project Rio services didn't have much in the way of advance fares, so it was a bit unrealistic to expect a public used to advance fares to suddenly take to expensive flexible fares. It's also worth noting that NW/EM flow development is a stated ambition in the report, so with long term marketing could be expanded.

South Manchester capacity is an issue, however as I understand it, the Chinley direction does at least have two routes in to Manchester, whereas via Derby - Crewe, you only have one route via Stockport which is full of pendolino's.

The east Manchester capacity isn't that great.

And technically from Derby you have two ways into Manchester albeit that they converge at Stockport i.e. change at Stoke on Trent or Crewe.