East Midlands franchise prospectus

[Andrew1395]

The MML could be a very important strategic route, taking pressure off of other congested routes, and with the prospect of the areas it serves being growth areas for new housing. Obviously south of Bedford is intensively used with long trains. But you do see the change once you leave the overheads behind. Relatively small trains, under-utilised routes. Electrification is the key. Presumably Leeds - Sheffield -Derby-Notts -Birmingham will not be forgotten in the dash for HS2. It surely must be a corridor that strategically the nation should be developing as part of the Industrial strategy. Linking key centres of population, universities and centres of commerce and engineering. I would add in this route to the East Midlands franchise.

 

[swt_passenger]

I would add in this route to the East Midlands franchise.

But much of that route (except Nottingham) is primarily operated by XC trains from the Northeast and Scotland through to destinations in the South or Southwest.

 

[nottinghamcity]

But much of that route (except Nottingham) is primarily operated by XC trains from the Northeast and Scotland through to destinations in the South or Southwest.

No less reason to electrify it though. XC would still need bimodals though, since I can't see Bromsgrove - Cheltenham - Chipping Sodbury being electrified any time soon.

As for the main EM routes, there are some quick wins that could be achieved with the correct specification of new rolling stock and improvements to diagramming. Some which spring to mind are:

Better stock on Crewe - Derby, and extension to Nottingham.

Improvement to connections and timetabling in Lincolnshire

Raising the status of the robin hood line, with through services to places beyond Nottingham.

Further capacity improvements to Norwich-Liverpool services

 

[swt_passenger]

No less reason to electrify it though. XC would still need bimodals though, since I can't see Bromsgrove - Cheltenham - Chipping Sodbury being electrified any time soon.

I was replying solely to the last point that it should be transferred to the East Midlands franchise though. Which is why I edited away the rest of the post by Andrew1395...

 

[Andrew1395]

I realise that XC run that corridor as part of the NE - SW services, but I don't think it works that well. I would rethink the XC franchise (I am not a fan of this virtual open access operator trying to be distinctive when greater breadth and integration of services required IMHO). Bristol/West country to Birmingham could go to GW and Edinburgh - Newcastle to Birmingham could go to TPE. It's just a thought that currently that core Midlands/Yorkshire route needs a boost.

 

[edwin_m]

I realise that XC run that corridor as part of the NE - SW services, but I don't think it works that well. I would rethink the XC franchise (I am not a fan of this virtual open access operator trying to be distinctive when greater breadth and integration of services required IMHO). Bristol/West country to Birmingham could go to GW and Edinburgh - Newcastle to Birmingham could go to TPE. It's just a thought that currently that core Midlands/Yorkshire route needs a boost.

Your are suggesting that everyone would have to change at New Street? Hardly an attractive prospect, which the renovation of the station has arguably made worse.

Trains take people from one place to another, so unless everyone changes train at the "boundary" it's inevitable on a multi-operator network that one operator's routes will reach into another's "territory". I suggest the best option would be for DfT to realise this, not keep thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and stop messing with the franchise maps for no good reason.

 

[anti-pacer]

There's not much point in using the metropolitan borough population's as a third of Sheffield's lies within the peak district so incorporates villages miles out. When you incorporate the urban area (more appropriate than invisible boundaries) - Sheffield has a population of 685,000.

This falls short however to Nottingham's urban area of 744,000.

Not true at all.

Sheffield has a CITY population of about 563,000. The urban area includes Rotherham which isn't part of Sheffield.

Nottingham CITY doesn't cover all of Nottingham. Some suburbs fall under Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe councils. The Nottingham Urban Area population includes Eastwood, Hucknall, Heanor, Ilkeston, Long Eaton and bizarrely, Ripley - none of which can be classed as Nottingham. The actual population of Nottingham, including Arnold, Beeston, Carlton, Stapleford, and West Bridgford, and areas in between, comes to about 507,000.

Therefore Sheffield CITY is bigger than Nottingham CITY and associated suburbs.

 

[Andrew1395]

Your are suggesting that everyone would have to change at New Street? Hardly an attractive prospect, which the renovation of the station has arguably made worse.

Trains take people from one place to another, so unless everyone changes train at the "boundary" it's inevitable on a multi-operator network that one operator's routes will reach into another's "territory". I suggest the best option would be for DfT to realise this, not keep thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and stop messing with the franchise maps for no good reason.

Everyone on the NOT-BHM cross country service has to change at New Street now. I would still have a set of services running from the South West to the North East, but to be honest having experienced many XC services, including the ones via Reading it's not the best UK rail experience, so I do think multiple operators across its current network would be a benefit

 

[Kettledrum]

I realise that XC run that corridor as part of the NE - SW services, but I don't think it works that well. I would rethink the XC franchise (I am not a fan of this virtual open access operator trying to be distinctive when greater breadth and integration of services required IMHO). Bristol/West country to Birmingham could go to GW and Edinburgh - Newcastle to Birmingham could go to TPE. It's just a thought that currently that core Midlands/Yorkshire route needs a boost.

You are right that XC does not work very well. The threads on here highlighting their loss-making, overcrowding, delays etc all support that.

But they do provide important long journey connectivity that might be lost if it was split up.

Like the other train operators into London, East Midlands trains generates significant cash revenues that can be used to run some non-London services that would otherwise struggle or be loss making. The number and range of these in the EMT franchise are relatively modest (e.g. Liverpool to Norwich, Derby - Crewe, Nottingham to Lincoln, Derby to Matlock). In a perfect world, it would be good if EMT would invest in these routes with new rolling stock and upgraded infrastructure but not sure that's really happened.

If you were to transfer some services to the East Midlands franchise, the Nottingham to Cardiff route might be the most likely contender perhaps?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Everyone on the NOT-BHM cross country service has to change at New Street now. I would still have a set of services running from the South West to the North East, but to be honest having experienced many XC services, including the ones via Reading it's not the best UK rail experience, so I do think multiple operators across its current network would be a benefit

There are some proposals for new services from the South-West to the North East to run on the new East-West railway, when it eventually opens. I imagine there are a number of franchises that this could be included in: XC, Chiltern and East Midlands to name but three.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Everyone on the NOT-BHM cross country service has to change at New Street now. I would still have a set of services running from the South West to the North East, but to be honest having experienced many XC services, including the ones via Reading it's not the best UK rail experience, so I do think multiple operators across its current network would be a benefit

I'm less convinced of the need for multiple operators and more convinced of the need to avoid giving franchises to the ones who don't operate them well.

 

[Kettledrum]

I'm less convinced of the need for multiple operators and more convinced of the need to avoid giving franchises to the ones who don't operate them well.

This would seem to favour the current operations of EMT and Chiltern at the expense of XC and London Midland then?

Ironically Chiltern and XC have the same parent company.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One item of some interest on London News is the aspiration of Luton Airport (a shambles at the moment due to rebuilding - and a rip off airport which charges you £3 to drop off a passenger in a 10 min maximum slot) - for a hugely improved fast rail service via the EMT new franchise. 10% modal share is rail apparently despite what is most time a good GTR service frequency.

Not actually sure how you would cover this - or indeed whether a call in a Nottingham / Sheffield fast (as opposed to the slow Nottingham) is a sound and strategic move when you are really dealing with the needs of much longer distance rail journeys.

 

[edwin_m]

One item of some interest on London News is the aspiration of Luton Airport (a shambles at the moment due to rebuilding - and a rip off airport which charges you £3 to drop off a passenger in a 10 min maximum slot) - for a hugely improved fast rail service via the EMT new franchise. 10% modal share is rail apparently despite what is most time a good GTR service frequency.

Not actually sure how you would cover this - or indeed whether a call in a Nottingham / Sheffield fast (as opposed to the slow Nottingham) is a sound and strategic move when you are really dealing with the needs of much longer distance rail journeys.

I tend to use Luton Airport and the hourly call by the slower Nottingham train quite often for destinations that aren't possible from East Midlands. Arguably the slower Sheffield train should call as well.

However EMT's successor shouldn't be expected to cater for the much larger numbers of airport passenger to and from London. There are 4TPH of Thameslink fasts that only make two stops before St Pancras, and are probably quicker door-to-door for many London passengers because of the choice of London stations.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I tend to use Luton Airport and the hourly call by the slower Nottingham train quite often for destinations that aren't possible from East Midlands. Arguably the slower Sheffield train should call as well.

However EMT's successor shouldn't be expected to cater for the much larger numbers of airport passenger to and from London. There are 4TPH of Thameslink fasts that only make two stops before St Pancras, and are probably quicker door-to-door for many London passengers because of the choice of London stations.

I agree - in a previous life I was able to influence the LAP call in the slow Nottingham as the original idea was in the Corby ! - the options of connectivity cross London on GTR (especially when they go back to going via London Bridge) is very valuable.

I can see why the Airport (which pays nothing towards train service provision) seem to think why fast I/C service ought to call !

 

[HH]

Therefore Sheffield CITY is bigger than Nottingham CITY and associated suburbs.

However it's not just about the number of people in the urban area, it's also about propensity to use rail. The very high student population of Nottingham would seem a factor there. Certainly the two cities have a very different feel to them...

 

[thenorthern]

I like how the specifications for the Crewe to Derby line are:

to provide the franchise capacity to address predicted growth in demand, in particular into London St Pancras, but also for local crowded services like Derby-Crewe, working with Network Rail to minimise the impact
on passengers and the effective running of train services during any
redevelopment works

Given that the line has in many ways the line has got worse since East Midlands Trains took over in that the Class 170s were replaced by Class 158s and now Class 153s, the first train of the morning leaves Derby at 06:40 rather than 05:34, parking charges have been introduced and the trains have got more overcrowded its more a case that the service shouldn't get any worse.

Given that only one of the stations (Derby) is served by other East Midlands Trains services and only two of the stations are in the East Midlands (Derby, Tutbury and Hatton is just in Derbyshire and many people from Uttoxeter claim to be from the East Midlands but its not) I think realistically it should be transferred to London Midland as hopefully then Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council would then press for better services.

 

[Robertj21a]

However it's not just about the number of people in the urban area, it's also about propensity to use rail. The very high student population of Nottingham would seem a factor there. Certainly the two cities have a very different feel to them...

Well one is still in the Midlands whereas the other is firmly 'oop north.......

[Ducks down for shelter]

:roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think what is being established is that single 153s are not suitable for anything at all (if there's a route with so little demand it arguably is not needed at all and would be arguably best as an Optare Solo on a road). Fortunately they will in time go away as they cannot be viably made RVAR compliant.

 

[Class 170101]

Turn the 153s back to 155s as built and then only one toilet is needed.

 

[bb21]

There is no need for the EM franchise to cater for the London - Luton Airport flow. All EM services should have set down/pick up restrictions at Luton Airport. I would even go so far as to remove calls at the airport altogether, instead serving Luton more frequently, or switching the two Luton/Airport calls between the Corbys and the Nottingham stoppers. There is a quite hefty EM - Luton passenger flow with no direct services at the moment off-peak.

What is really needed is for one of the Sheffields to call at Kettering, thereby providing a second hourly journey opportunity connecting with the Corbys, although under current arrangements I am of the understanding that it is not possible due to pathing constraints.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Turn the 153s back to 155s as built and then only one toilet is needed.

Indeed. The primary issue with 153s is that there are almost no services with such low loadings left.

 

[edwin_m]

There is no need for the EM franchise to cater for the London - Luton Airport flow. All EM services should have set down/pick up restrictions at Luton Airport. I would even go so far as to remove calls at the airport altogether, instead serving Luton more frequently, or switching the two Luton/Airport calls between the Corbys and the Nottingham stoppers. There is a quite hefty EM - Luton passenger flow with no direct services at the moment off-peak.

I'd do the opposite and concentrate all EMT services on the Airport Parkway with free double-back on Thameslink for Luton Town passengers. It's ridiculous to split a long-distance operation between two such closely-spaced stations and although the Parkway isn't a great place to wait for a train the Town station is worse. For airport passengers to/from the north having to change at Town and again 2min later at Parkway would probably be too much of a disincentive.

 

[HH]

I'd do the opposite and concentrate all EMT services on the Airport Parkway with free double-back on Thameslink for Luton Town passengers. It's ridiculous to split a long-distance operation between two such closely-spaced stations and although the Parkway isn't a great place to wait for a train the Town station is worse. For airport passengers to/from the north having to change at Town and again 2min later at Parkway would probably be too much of a disincentive.

I'd probably agree with this. What's more, Luton Airport would fall over backwards to get this (i.e. might stump up some money).

 

[ashworth]

There is no need for the EM franchise to cater for the London - Luton Airport flow. All EM services should have set down/pick up restrictions at Luton Airport. I would even go so far as to remove calls at the airport altogether, instead serving Luton more frequently, or switching the two Luton/Airport calls between the Corbys and the Nottingham stoppers. There is a quite hefty EM - Luton passenger flow with no direct services at the moment off-peak.

What is really needed is for one of the Sheffields to call at Kettering, thereby providing a second hourly journey opportunity connecting with the Corbys, although under current arrangements I am of the understanding that it is not possible due to pathing constraints.

I know quite a few people from Nottingham who find it a real inconvenience that no off peak trains to/from Nottingham call at Luton.
Also, although I think I know the reason why the fast Nottingham train calls at Market Haborough, it isn't really of great use to travellers from Nottingham. When this happened following the introduction of the Corby service and the second Sheffield train each hour, the people of Market Harborough did very well to get a non stop train direct to London.
A stop at somewhere like Bedford would provide connections and better journey opportunities to/from intermediate stations like Luton, Luton Airport and St. Albans.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'd do the opposite and concentrate all EMT services on the Airport Parkway with free double-back on Thameslink for Luton Town passengers. It's ridiculous to split a long-distance operation between two such closely-spaced stations and although the Parkway isn't a great place to wait for a train the Town station is worse. For airport passengers to/from the north having to change at Town and again 2min later at Parkway would probably be too much of a disincentive.

Agree - Parkway is a very much better option than the depressing Luton (at platform level) station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know quite a few people from Nottingham who find it a real inconvenience that no off peak trains to/from Nottingham call at Luton.
Also, although I think I know the reason why the fast Nottingham train calls at Market Haborough, it isn't really of great use to travellers from Nottingham. When this happened following the introduction of the Corby service and the second Sheffield train each hour, the people of Market Harborough did very well to get a non stop train direct to London.
A stop at somewhere like Bedford would provide connections and better journey opportunities to/from intermediate stations like Luton, Luton Airport and St. Albans.

I think part of the reasoning was also to maintain a 2 tph service from Market H to Leicester (as well as a fast London link)

 

[ashworth]

I think part of the reasoning was also to maintain a 2 tph service from Market H to Leicester (as well as a fast London link)

It was when the second stopping service each was diverted to Corby instead of Derby and a second service was introduced each hour to Sheffield. Market Harborough needed a 2tph to Leicester but arguably more important stations like Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering lost out on trains to the north.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It was when the second stopping service each was diverted to Corby instead of Derby and a second service was introduced each hour to Sheffield. Market Harborough needed a 2tph to Leicester but arguably more important stations like Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering lost out on trains to the north.

Spot on ....one call on the Sheffield was permitted , and MH won the raffle - a source of much grief for Bedfordites , who now have an hourly north service.

More change to come then when Corby gets the wires - not that the latter has really seen massive patronage. Reasonable yes - but not outstanding.

 

[thenorthern]

Luton Airport Parkway in my opinion should remain a stop as its it serves quite a busy airport, we wouldn't be suggesting removing Birmingham International or Southampton Airport Parkway from CrossCountry services both of which are smaller airports. I do think however the link to the airport and awareness should be improved and maybe rename it London Luton Airport station or something similar.

Personally I think as well there should be 2 franchises one for local trains and one for intercity trains but its not going to happen.

 

[adrock1976]

Luton Airport Parkway in my opinion should remain a stop as its it serves quite a busy airport, we wouldn't be suggesting removing Birmingham International or Southampton Airport Parkway from CrossCountry services both of which are smaller airports. I do think however the link to the airport and awareness should be improved and maybe rename it London Luton Airport station or something similar.

Personally I think as well there should be 2 franchises one for local trains and one for intercity trains but its not going to happen.

Perhaps as the local residents of Luton do not pay council tax to any of the Greater London Borough Councils, perhaps the airport (and the station) be re-named to "Jethro Tull", in honour of the prog/hard rock band that were founded there?

Speke Airport in Liverpool was branded John Lennon in tribute to one-quarter of The Beatles.

 

[Kettledrum]

I think what is being established is that single 153s are not suitable for anything at all (if there's a route with so little demand it arguably is not needed at all and would be arguably best as an Optare Solo on a road). Fortunately they will in time go away as they cannot be viably made RVAR compliant.

Crewe to Derby sometimes sees the 153 units run in pairs and as such they are fine for this route. As singles, they are inadequate. There are not enough to run in pairs on the existing one train per hour timetable.

Many single unit services are already running full outside the peaks.

Ideally, I'd really like to see 2 tph between Crewe and Derby, which could be single units outside the peaks but doubled up units in the peak services.

I'm sure if the rolling stock was there to do it, the passenger numbers would be sufficient
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no need for the EM franchise to cater for the London - Luton Airport flow. All EM services should have set down/pick up restrictions at Luton Airport. I would even go so far as to remove calls at the airport altogether, instead serving Luton more frequently, or switching the two Luton/Airport calls between the Corbys and the Nottingham stoppers. There is a quite hefty EM - Luton passenger flow with no direct services at the moment off-peak.

What is really needed is for one of the Sheffields to call at Kettering, thereby providing a second hourly journey opportunity connecting with the Corbys, although under current arrangements I am of the understanding that it is not possible due to pathing constraints.

Once the East West rail is operational, I wondered whether any of the EMT would stop at Bedford to allow connections.....assuming there are no XC trains going down the MML and then onto the East West railway. (if there are, then this could provide the second Market Harborough to Leicester service, and then the entire service pattern could be up in the air.)