East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[Domh245]

Mainline:
222's remain and HST's get reformed with MK4's as 2+8 for all 11 sets.
110 or even 125 max EMU for Corby with the option for 12 car units if capacity allows - possibly 350 or 379 (If they could be upgraded to 110 operation)

A bidder could propose it but they'd score very poorly because the DfT will be expecting bidders to make maximum use of the wires as far as Kettering.

 

[cactustwirly]

With the welsh franchise getting rid of the 175's and 158's this could be possible in the next franchise:

Mainline:
222's remain and HST's get reformed with MK4's as 2+8 for all 11 sets.
110 or even 125 max EMU for Corby with the option for 12 car units if capacity allows - possibly 350 or 379 (If they could be upgraded to 110 operation)

Local/Regional
153, 156 - aim to reduce/replace by the end of the franchise
158 - additional 24 sets from the welsh francise
175 - gains from the welsh francise

The 175s can replace the 158 on Liverpool - Norwich's with 2 and 3 car sets capacity can be increased with the option of running up to 6 car trains and all through trains can be 3 coaches.

The 158's can replace the 153's and 156's and with 50 sets available capacity could be increase on most services but also additional services could operate for example a clock face timetable in Lincolnshire and could provide additional services in rush hour or even new services/routes altogether.

Sounds sensible, but as @Domh245 says, I'd expect a new fleet of Bi-modes to replace at least the HSTs.

 

[Killingworth]

Is the rumour of TransPennine Express taking over the service from Liverpool to Nottingham still floating around?

A positive point would be the introduction of First Class but obviously a 3 car 185 has quite a lot less seats than a 4 car 158. I’m not sure if platform lengths would allow a six car 185?

As a user of the Sheffield-Manchester I see pros and cons of both options and Class 158 v. 185 is just part of it. Who operates them is less important to most users than them arriving on time with seats to sit on - and sometimes enough carriage space to even get aboard.

In theory TPE and EMT provide 2 fast trains an hour between Manchester and Sheffield. EMT suffers from all sorts of delays from Norwich to Liverpool. Despite several long stops for recovery their trains are frequently late.

TPE tend to be more punctual but they too can pick up delays anywhere between Cleethorpes and Manchester Airport. Consequently overcrowding can occur on any service by either operator because the later it gets the more traffic it will take from the following service.

This is frequently compounded when EMT provide a 2 coach 158 rather than the 4 planned. That train gets later and later due to the congestion until it gets so late it may be diverted round the Dore curve to miss out Sheffield completely. This causes intense irritation to passengers for Sheffield and passes the overcrowding to the following TPE service.

The TPE 185 3 car formation is currently adequate for most services, but certainly not during commuter periods. 6 carriages are to be provided by the end of the year (one commuter train in each direction already is). A refreshment trolley is provided on most services from Manchester to Doncaster but can't move down the busiest trains. As two 185s have no corridor connection between them that provision will be no better with the longer train. Short platforms require Selective Door Opening, a practice that requires the conductor to be in the right half of a 6 coach train. As with catering it seems one half will be unmanned, or extra crew will be needed.

185s have first class but the luggage space for travellers for Manchester Airport is often totally inadequate.

158s are great when a 4 car train is provided, although there is no first class. A refreshment trolley can pass right down the train and adding extra units would be a relatively simple matter (but at present they often can't find 2 158s and are adding a 156 or 153). Reversal at Sheffield and dividing the train at Nottingham can complicate a little, but it's the late running that's the Achilles heel for continuance of the full route from Liverpool to Norwich.

 

[The Ham]

As a user of the Sheffield-Manchester I see pros and cons of both options and Class 158 v. 185 is just part of it. Who operates them is less important to most users than them arriving on time with seats to sit on - and sometimes enough carriage space to even get aboard.

In theory TPE and EMT provide 2 fast trains an hour between Manchester and Sheffield. EMT suffers from all sorts of delays from Norwich to Liverpool. Despite several long stops for recovery their trains are frequently late.

TPE tend to be more punctual but they too can pick up delays anywhere between Cleethorpes and Manchester Airport. Consequently overcrowding can occur on any service by either operator because the later it gets the more traffic it will take from the following service.

This is frequently compounded when EMT provide a 2 coach 158 rather than the 4 planned. That train gets later and later due to the congestion until it gets so late it may be diverted round the Dore curve to miss out Sheffield completely. This causes intense irritation to passengers for Sheffield and passes the overcrowding to the following TPE service.

The TPE 185 3 car formation is currently adequate for most services, but certainly not during commuter periods. 6 carriages are to be provided by the end of the year (one commuter train in each direction already is). A refreshment trolley is provided on most services from Manchester to Doncaster but can't move down the busiest trains. As two 185s have no corridor connection between them that provision will be no better with the longer train. Short platforms require Selective Door Opening, a practice that requires the conductor to be in the right half of a 6 coach train. As with catering it seems one half will be unmanned, or extra crew will be needed.

185s have first class but the luggage space for travellers for Manchester Airport is often totally inadequate.

158s are great when a 4 car train is provided, although there is no first class. A refreshment trolley can pass right down the train and adding extra units would be a relatively simple matter (but at present they often can't find 2 158s and are adding a 156 or 153). Reversal at Sheffield and dividing the train at Nottingham can complicate a little, but it's the late running that's the Achilles heel for continuance of the full route from Liverpool to Norwich.

Which is why I've suggested in the past that SWR take some 185's to run some of the WofE line diagrams which don't run in or out of Waterloo in the peaks.

Although SWR would then want to use some of the freed up 159's to lengthen some of the services run by their 2 coach 158's so that they could use them to run more 10 coach services, the should be score to release some 159's to others to use.

In doing so EMT could get the best of both worlds.

Of course the releasing of the Welsh 158's could mean that EMT could diagram 3*158's for the busiest services and could have some more spare units making short formed services less of a problem (being 4 coaches rather than the scheduled 6) and less likely (with more units to cover for a failed unit).

 

[devinier]

The 3 bidders left after First Group bailed out are Abellio, Stagecoach and Arriva.
Grayling has taken East Coast off Stagecoach and is currently wondering what the heck to do about Arriva’s debacle at Northern. With all that and Brexit round the corner, I predict the East Midlands ITT will be postponed and EMT given another direct award until at least 2020.

It’s pointless until the ITT to discuss what future units or destinations they may or may not have.

 

[The Ham]

The 3 bidders left after First Group bailed out are Abellio, Stagecoach and Arriva.
Grayling has taken East Coast off Stagecoach and is currently wondering what the heck to do about Arriva’s debacle at Northern. With all that and Brexit round the corner, I predict the East Midlands ITT will be postponed and EMT given another direct award until at least 2020.

It’s pointless until the ITT to discuss what future units or destinations they may or may not have.

That suggestion was something that is considered, but for other reasons.

Basically if the DfT pay a management fee for Stagecoach to bring into service as many 230's and other units that become available between now and the start of 2020 and give them permission to use the HST's for a limited period of time (given the works to convert them to be compliant are unlikely to be done in time). Then just have the new franchise run from about mid 2020 with new units coming along soon after.

However given that some have confirmed the document exists I would be surprised if there was a change now.

 

[devinier]

I’m sure the document exists, I’m just not sure they will publish it.

 

[The Ham]

I’m sure the document exists, I’m just not sure they will publish it.

Why buck the trend? If it had any good news (i.e. new trains, new routes, increased frequencies) then it allows the government to have good rail news stories when it's published, when the franchise is let and when the good news is implemented.

The government could do with some good rail news at the moment!

 

[45107]

Mainline:
222's remain and HST's get reformed with MK4's as 2+8 for all 11 sets.
110 or even 125 max EMU for Corby with the option for 12 car units if capacity allows - possibly 350 or 379 (If they could be upgraded to 110 operation)

OLE south of Bedford will require upgrade as I believe that it is only fit for 100mph.

 

[mallard]

My crazy ideas:

London services:

• As soon as possible after start of franchise:
  • HSTs updated with Mk4 carriages as PRM mods are completed on them
  • Cl360s introduced on Corby services, releasing 4x4-car 222s for XC
• Eventually (into the 2020s)
  • New fleet of bi-modes (using OHLE south of Kettering as NR completes work to make it suitable for 125mph)
    
  • HSTs withdrawn
  • Most, if not all, 222s transferred to XC (possibly also to GC or anybody else who can find a use for them if they're deemed to be in excess of XC's requirements)

Local/regional services:

• As soon as possible after start of franchise:
  • Most XC 170 routes transferred to EM franchise, along with entire XC 170 fleet (Nottingham - Cardiff fast services remain with XC, but operated with 22x units; the aforementioned 4x4-car 222s providing the necissary capacity; possibly some 170s subleased back to XC to help until additional 222s available)
• Eventually (into the 2020s):
  • Class 185s from TPE (largely for ex-XC routes) and Class 158s from ATW (largely for NRW-LIV) introduced to allow withdrawal of all 153/156 units (largely replaced by ex-XC 170s) and strengthening of some/most NRW-LIV services to 6 or even 8 carriages
  • Most local routes increased to 2tph (where the current frequence is less) and Sunday timetable improved/introduced on all routes
• Towards end of franchise (around 2030):
  • Cl158s replaced by fleet of new trains as manufacturing capacity at CAF/Stadler/Bombardier becomes available (I'd favour something like a fleet of 3/4-car CAF Civity units with gangways, but it's far enough away that better designs might be available)

 

[43055]

A bidder could propose it but they'd score very poorly because the DfT will be expecting bidders to make maximum use of the wires as far as Kettering.

Sounds sensible, but as @Domh245 says, I'd expect a new fleet of Bi-modes to replace at least the HSTs.

True. Bi-modes could replace the HST fleet quite easily as NL is lined up to be a IET depot which is where current HST fleet is based. Maybe the HST+MK4 operation could be a stop gap. I'm just hoping XC gets the next batch of bi-modes as they need them more and have more distance for electric operation.

 

[Domh245]

True. Bi-modes could replace the HST fleet quite easily as NL is lined up to be a IET depot which is where current HST fleet is based. Maybe the HST+MK4 operation could be a stop gap. I'm just hoping XC gets the next batch of bi-modes as they need them more and have more distance for electric operation.

Bi modes don't have to be made by Hitachi, nor do they have to go to either EMT or XC, there is nothing to stop both future TOCs both receiving new bi more fleets

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't see HST & Mk4s happening, as it's a lot of work to do (change the power supply & alter a lot of the platforms) just for 2-3 years of operations

 

[The Ham]

Bi modes don't have to be made by Hitachi, nor do they have to go to either EMT or XC, there is nothing to stop both future TOCs both receiving new bi more fleets

If XC opted for a mix of 5 and 7 coach units with the same capacity as using all the 22x fleet (with the 4 coach units running in pairs noisy of the time) other than the Virgin 221's then it would be cheaper unless the new units had a higher lease cost.

Basically it's down to the need for 8 coach trains (4+4) to match the capacity of a 7 coach unit.

It's why I wouldn't be surprised if there's a load of 220's cascaded away from XC along with the 222's leaving EMT with both being replaced by new bimodal units.

 

[YorkshireBear]

All gone very quiet with the ITT again. Is it now 2 months late?

 

[The Ham]

There's been a freedom of information request at the end of May:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/east_midlands_franchise_2018_onw?unfold=1#incoming-1165137

The response was:

The Invitation to Tender documentation for the next East Midlands franchise will be published in due course on the GOV.UK website and is therefore being withheld at this time in reliance on the exemption at section 22(1) of the FOI Act which covers information intended for future publication.

As section 22(1) is a qualified exemption we are required to balance the public interest in
disclosing the information against that for withholding it. Annex A to this letter sets out the exemption in full and details why the public interest test favours withholding the information at this time.

 

[mallard]

I don't see HST & Mk4s happening, as it's a lot of work to do (change the power supply & alter a lot of the platforms) just for 2-3 years of operations

5-6 years, surely? Any bi-modes are unlikely to be in full service until around 2025. Modifying Mk3s for PRM is bound to be more work.

Also, which platforms need modifying? Mk4s have visited Loughborough (Brush) on the MML, but I believe they travelled via the Peterborough-Syston route. The sectional appendix lists Mk4s as being not cleared for the entire East Midlands route area, which includes that entire route from Peterborough onwards, so clearly that's not absolute. It also says the same about power-door modified Mk3s, which will be required if the Mk3s are to continue in service much longer...

 

[cactustwirly]

5-6 years, surely? Any bi-modes are unlikely to be in full service until around 2025. Modifying Mk3s for PRM is bound to be more work.

Also, which platforms need modifying? Mk4s have visited Loughborough (Brush) on the MML, but I believe they travelled via the Peterborough-Syston route. The sectional appendix lists Mk4s as being not cleared for the entire East Midlands route area, which includes that entire route from Peterborough onwards, so clearly that's not absolute. It also says the same about power-door modified Mk3s, which will be required if the Mk3s are to continue in service much longer...

I was thinking more Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Harpenden for starters.

 

[43055]

Bi modes don't have to be made by Hitachi, nor do they have to go to either EMT or XC, there is nothing to stop both future TOCs both receiving new bi more fleets

I thought Hitachi are the only company doing new Bi-modes at the moment are there any other companies looking at bi-modes then?

 

[cactustwirly]

I thought Hitachi are the only company doing new Bi-modes at the moment are there any other companies looking at bi-modes then?

Bombardier, Stadler etc

 

[47421]

Tweet @labourwhips says Ministerial statement on ITT coming today Thursday

 

[devinier]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/east-midlands-franchise-2018-invitation-to-tender

It’s a long read but the main thing I noticed is that Nottingham - Liverpool is to be taken over by another operator from Dec 2021.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's interesting, sounds like absolute confirmation that TPE will operate it using the remaining Class 185s.

6-car, I hope.

 

[jw]

The ITT has now been released. Bi-modes are required for the intercity services from St Pancras.

No CrossCountry services will be moved over to the East Midlands franchise, but bidders free to propose service expansions.

TPE or Northern to operate Liverpool to Nottingham, East Midlands operator keeping Nottingham to Norwich. Transport for the North to work with DfT to look into this in more detail

 

[northwichcat]

TPE or Northern to operate Liverpool to Nottingham, East Midlands operator keeping Nottingham to Norwich. Transport for the North to work with DfT to look into this in more detail

From TSR2 (December 2021.)

 

[whhistle]

I'm surprised about the Stansted - Birmingham (and Leicester to Birmingham) not being transferred.

2.2: Franchise Objectives
Invest in the East Midlands Train fleet... bring up to world class standards

I wonder whether they would look at seat back TVs or at least some sort of steaming service.
I also would have thought now would be the time to lobby Network Rail to sort out track side WiFi services so free WiFi for all could become a reality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems sensible in the light of problems on Northern:

a) Reduce to a minimum the need for rest-day working and/or overtime working, where these are currently a necessity to deliver the Plan of the Day prior to December 2021, noting that this does not preclude the use of overtime to cover unexpected events, emergencies or to provide cover for services delivering for the 63 uplift in passenger demand that may occur seasonally or during special events from time to time;

 

[northwichcat]

The ITT also confirms the number of 153s in the fleet will increase by 4 before the start of the next franchise.

They also have to undertake trial a form of green train, whether that's hydrogen, battery or hybrid is up to the bidders.

 

[ashworth]

No CrossCountry services will be moved over to the East Midlands franchise, but bidders free to propose service expansions.

TPE or Northern to operate Liverpool to Nottingham, East Midlands operator keeping Nottingham to Norwich. Transport for the North to work with DfT to look into this in more detail

Without having any figures, just going on what I have seen of passenger numbers, I would have thought that Nottingham to Liverpool must be EMT’s most profitable route away from the MML.

Taking away Nottingham to Liverpool and not adding any CrossCountry, or any other routes, leaves the new East Midlands Franchise quite a small operation away from the MML with mainly secondary and rural routes especially in Lincolnshire. Even some of these routes are very seasonable especially Nottingham to Skegness and even Nottingham to Norwich can be quiet off peak in the winter.

 

[mallard]

Well, that pretty much confirms the DfT's desire to "punish" the East Midlands then... Some "highlights":

• The specifications for service frequency bear no relation to the ORR's estimates of station usage (apparently the ~300,000 passengers per year at EMD need the same level of service as the ~1,300,000 at LBO and that's less than what the ~1,000,000 at Kettering apparently need).
  
• The specification is explicitly calling for bi-modes with diesel performance matching a 222. Good luck with that...
• All new rolling stock (including intercity stock) is required to be DOO-ready. DOO intercity services are obviously a terrible idea, so hopefully this is a mistake.
  
• Neutral branding is required using the name "East Midlands Railway". Could they come up with anything more bland and uninspiring?
  
• No weekday frequency improvements are specified to any local/regional routes. In fact, some of the specified frequencies look like reductions.
• There are (freaking finally!) some improvements to the Sunday timetable, including a Sunday service on the "Ivanhoe" route which has been sorely needed for years.
• The fact that no XC routes are being transferred means the connections at Leicester will continue to be awful for years to come. A real opportunity has been lost for a decent "East Midlands Metro" type service, rather than the patchwork of poorly integrated local services we have now. Given what the PiXC numbers have shown, I can't help but wonder if the desire is to avoid improving local services in order to discourage use and avoid showing how inadequate the services in the area really are.
  
• Very little requirement for station improvements; only £1.1m to be spent on non-accessibility-related improvements. Leicester station alone is a utter disgrace for a 5,400,000 passenger per year station and will cost far more than that to fix. It's almost certianly one of the worst category B stations in the country. There's mention of a "Station Improvement Fund" (possibly funded by the DfT?) with a bit of extra cash, but even that has no budget allocated for non-accessibilty improvements at stations with more than 250,000 annual passengers.