East Midlands franchise prospectus

[bb21]

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).

Maybe they can pay for new trains for the franchise too?

 

[tbtc]

If you were to transfer some services to the East Midlands franchise, the Nottingham to Cardiff route might be the most likely contender perhaps?

I think that Birmingham - Stansted would be a bigger priority for a service to transfer to EMT.

I'd also suggest Nottingham - Leeds and Sheffield - Lincoln, if they didn't interwork with other Northern services (becoming Nottingham - Bradford and Leeds - Sheffield - Lincoln in the new franchise).

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.

Agreed.

I don't know the best way for EMT to serve Bedford/ Luton/ Luton Airport, but I'd have any calls at those three stations at set down southbound, pick up northbound. I'd also rather that EMT Leicester services only stopped at one of the stations (rather than the current situation where the xx:29 from London to Nottingham stops at both Luton Airport and Bedford). Let Thameslink deal with the local traffic.

The problem is how you deal with local traffic between Wellingborough/ Kettining/ Market Harborough and Bedford/ Luton/ Luton Airport though. Is it significant enough to ensure that everywhere has a direct link every hour to everywhere? Or do you restrict EMT services to generally just Bedford (since people can change there for Luton and its Airport)?

(to clarify - I'm not talking about the Corby services here, which aren't as long distance/ fast, so could stop once or twice south of Wellingborough)

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...

They have a different feel to them (I'd argue that Sheffield feels like it has more in common with South Yorkshire than Nottingham has with Nottinghamshire), but we have plenty of students round these parts too - tens of thousands - nothing unique about Nottingham there.

I think a coupled pair of 5-car 802s might be too long to fit in St Pancras - a 10-car 222 takes most of the platform.

Ah... good point!

I guess one "positive" about the relatively truncated MML (compared to the ECML/ WCML/ GWML) is that there aren't so many "rural" stations to serve (i.e. on the way to Inverness, Holyhead, Hereford/ Penzance), so most stations that the "fasts" serve should cope with 8x26m or 9x26m. I'm not so sure about Long Eaton/ Beeston etc though - do you know what they could accommodate?

Is there a way of doing this with just one fleet of trains for all London - Leicester services (Corby could be run by TSGN if needed)? Just curious

 

[bb21]

Long Eaton accommodates 4 coaches on 222s, and Beeston 5 coaches iirc.

Sectional appendix have them at 110m (down) 113m (up) for the former, and 142m both platforms at the latter.

 

[thenorthern]

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.

Problem with that logic is we would then end up with Solihull Airport, Eastleigh Airport, Fylde Airport and Crawley Airport.

The official name of London Luton Airport is London Luton Airport.

 

[adrock1976]

It never started out that way though did it, as Luton is in Bedfordshire.

When was the prefix "London" added to it out of curiosity?

 

[thenorthern]

It never started out that way though did it, as Luton is in Bedfordshire.

When was the prefix "London" added to it out of curiosity?

1990 I think, there are other airports though that have had the "London" prefix added since then though such as London Ashford Airport, London Southend Airport, London Oxford Airport and the now closed London Manston Airport which was also known as Manston Airport and Kent International Airport during its time.

 

[anti-pacer]

1990 I think, there are other airports though that have had the "London" prefix added since then though such as London Ashford Airport, London Southend Airport, London Oxford Airport and the now closed London Manston Airport which was also known as Manston Airport and Kent International Airport during its time.

When HS2 comes along we'll have London Birmingham Airport and London East Midlands Airport!

 

[edwin_m]

I don't know the best way for EMT to serve Bedford/ Luton/ Luton Airport, but I'd have any calls at those three stations at set down southbound, pick up northbound. I'd also rather that EMT Leicester services only stopped at one of the stations (rather than the current situation where the xx:29 from London to Nottingham stops at both Luton Airport and Bedford). Let Thameslink deal with the local traffic.

The problem is how you deal with local traffic between Wellingborough/ Kettining/ Market Harborough and Bedford/ Luton/ Luton Airport though. Is it significant enough to ensure that everywhere has a direct link every hour to everywhere? Or do you restrict EMT services to generally just Bedford (since people can change there for Luton and its Airport)?

(to clarify - I'm not talking about the Corby services here, which aren't as long distance/ fast, so could stop once or twice south of Wellingborough)

I suggest the 2TPH Corby services should make all the Luton Town (if any), Bedford and Wellingborough stops, except perhaps in the peaks. Some careful demand management may be needed to prevent overloading from Bedford and Luton passengers who prefer them to the slower and less comfortable Thameslink alternative, but this would be less of a problem than if the existing EMT service pattern was continued.

The slower Nottingham and probably also the slower Sheffield trains should then call at Luton Airport Parkway (with restrictions on local travel to St Pancras, enforced by the barriers there) then Kettering where timetables should provide connections from the northbound Corby towards Leicester and vice versa southbound, and also between Corby and the north. This suggests that timetable planning needs to start from Kettering.

Market Harborough is tricky as it is the only one of the smaller stations south of Leicester that the Corby train doesn't pass through, and providing a second London train per hour is the main reason for the current compromise of stopping the faster Nottingham. Ideally this stop should transfer to the slower Sheffield too.

 

[Mordac]

Problem with that logic is we would then end up with Solihull Airport, Eastleigh Airport, Fylde Airport and Crawley Airport.

The official name of London Luton Airport is London Luton Airport.

Not to mention Ayr Airport!

 

[HH]

They have a different feel to them (I'd argue that Sheffield feels like it has more in common with South Yorkshire than Nottingham has with Nottinghamshire), but we have plenty of students round these parts too - tens of thousands - nothing unique about Nottingham there.

And yet the mean age in Nottingham is about 5 years less than Sheffield and the median is even further apart...

 

[bb21]

(with restrictions on local travel to St Pancras, enforced by the barriers there

How do you propose to do that?

If there are to be two hourly calls on services going north of Leicester, not serving Luton direct on at least one of those trains is madness considering the potential market. A change is a change in many people's eyes. If you want to serve the airport, then I would say let the Nottingham stop at Luton, and the Sheffield call at the airport. The airport is also arguably more relevant to more local population so you can then alternate the Luton calls on the two Corbys and job done.

London Oxford Airport is just stupid.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

How do you propose to do that?

If there are to be two hourly calls on services going north of Leicester, not serving Luton direct on at least one of those trains is madness considering the potential market. A change is a change in many people's eyes. If you want to serve the airport, then I would say let the Nottingham stop at Luton, and the Sheffield call at the airport. The airport is also arguably more relevant to more local population so you can then alternate the Luton calls on the two Corbys and job done.

London Oxford Airport is just stupid.

Sounds like an excellent option ....

 

[edwin_m]

How do you propose to do that?

If there are to be two hourly calls on services going north of Leicester, not serving Luton direct on at least one of those trains is madness considering the potential market. A change is a change in many people's eyes. If you want to serve the airport, then I would say let the Nottingham stop at Luton, and the Sheffield call at the airport. The airport is also arguably more relevant to more local population so you can then alternate the Luton calls on the two Corbys and job done.

The EMT barriers at St Pancas could be programmed to reject any Luton or Parkway tickets. More difficult if you allow them on the Corby trains of course - then it would have to be down to random on-train inspections and charging any offenders an Anytime single to/from the next authorised stop plus a penalty fare.

It's obviously a matter of opinion on the importance of the two stations, but mine is that it's ridiculous to split the long distance service between two stations so close together and with frequent Thameslink trains between them. The Corby trains could perhaps call at both. A change is still a change for airport passengers, only that much worse at an older station with poor facilities, with luggage and possibly the stress of being late for a flight.

 

[bb21]

How big is the airport market even?

Luton - East Midlands is a considerable market.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In any case, if the airport were willing to pay mega bucks for it as someone mentioned earlier, then it probably will sway the decision somewhat, so all this discussion may well be rather academic.

Btw I do acknowledge your point, as it is quite valid imo, although that should not be the sole consideration imo, but we are good to agree to differ.

 

[adrock1976]

Forgive me if I've missed something, but does the East Midlands region not have its own airport?

Are there still frequent passenger flights from East Midlands, or is it mainly cargo nowadays?

 

[bb21]

Define "frequent".

Yes, there are still a lot of passenger flights from EMA. Birmingham also offers a convenient gateway to many destinations.

 

[adrock1976]

What I meant by "frequent" in my previous post was anything greater than the number of passenger flights that Teesside Airport receives at this moment in time.

Anyway, thanks very much for clarifying the situation regarding EMA.

 

[anti-pacer]

Forgive me if I've missed something, but does the East Midlands region not have its own airport?

Are there still frequent passenger flights from East Midlands, or is it mainly cargo nowadays?

East Midlands Airport is growing and has a reasonable destination offering. Luton Airport is popular with Eastern European passengers.

 

[CommuterPigeon]

It does have its own airport but it's not particularly easy to access by rail using East Midlands Parkway.
I believe originally there was a bus service between the station and the airport arranged by EMT, however barely anyone used it so now it's just an hourly 6 seater taxi which only really works because of how bunched up the services to EM Parkway are.

One of the possible issues from adding more calls in at Luton Airport Parkway is that unless you had a pick up/set down only operation it would surely just be abstractive from Thameslink which I can't see being very popular given how much has been spent on the Thameslink Programme?

 

[tbtc]

Long Eaton accommodates 4 coaches on 222s, and Beeston 5 coaches iirc.

Sectional appendix have them at 110m (down) 113m (up) for the former, and 142m both platforms at the latter.

Ah - not good - thanks for confirming.

I'm not sure how we can square the circle of extending capacity on London - East Midlands services whilst retaining the direct services to Beeton and Long Eaton in that case.

I suggest the 2TPH Corby services should make all the Luton Town (if any), Bedford and Wellingborough stops, except perhaps in the peaks. Some careful demand management may be needed to prevent overloading from Bedford and Luton passengers who prefer them to the slower and less comfortable Thameslink alternative, but this would be less of a problem than if the existing EMT service pattern was continued.

The slower Nottingham and probably also the slower Sheffield trains should then call at Luton Airport Parkway (with restrictions on local travel to St Pancras, enforced by the barriers there) then Kettering where timetables should provide connections from the northbound Corby towards Leicester and vice versa southbound, and also between Corby and the north. This suggests that timetable planning needs to start from Kettering.

Market Harborough is tricky as it is the only one of the smaller stations south of Leicester that the Corby train doesn't pass through, and providing a second London train per hour is the main reason for the current compromise of stopping the faster Nottingham. Ideally this stop should transfer to the slower Sheffield too.

How do you propose to do that?

If there are to be two hourly calls on services going north of Leicester, not serving Luton direct on at least one of those trains is madness considering the potential market. A change is a change in many people's eyes. If you want to serve the airport, then I would say let the Nottingham stop at Luton, and the Sheffield call at the airport. The airport is also arguably more relevant to more local population so you can then alternate the Luton calls on the two Corbys and job done

I'm really not sure of the best solution, based on maintaining the current four/ hour from London to Leicester.

You need to stop at least one at Market Harborough.

There are separate markets at Bedford (80,000 people plus Marston Vale line, EW Rail in future), Luton (200,000+ depending on which neighbouring areas you want to include) and Luton Airport.

Do you go for the initial Midland Mainline option of two "fast" services (non stop London - Leicester) and two "slow" services per hour (so everywhere gets a direct link but long distance passengers are disproportionately on the "fast" services), or do you try to balance it with every service having one or two stops south of Leicester?

Since Nottingham and Derby trains are separate, I don't think that there are any particular markets that are more important than others (e.g. as long as Market Harborough gets one service per hour to Leicester then I don't think it matters whether that is a "Derby" train or a "Nottingham" one).

If you try to give Nottingham and Derby a direct link to (say) Luton Airport then are you okay if the Luton Airport - Leicester service is a rough 15/45 minute split? Because giving them a 30/30 split would mean making the London - Nottingham service a 15/45 split (and the same 15/45 split on London - Derby).

In some senses, stopping at the Airport (instead of Bedford or Luton) would be better, since they are less likely to be crowded by short distance London passengers (compared to Bedford/ Luton stops). But then there's a case for Bedford (since Luton/ Airport passengers can change there without doubling back). And Luton (town) is busier than Bedford or the Airport.

Kettering and Wellingborough are busier (almost a million passengers pa) than Market Harborough (700,000ish), so arguably more deserving of calls, but if the Corby services stop there then does that make more of an argument for Market Harborough getting two Leicester services per hour instead?

Is there much demand between "local" stations, or is skip stopping acceptable (i.e. Market Harborough to London is more important than giving it direct services each hour to Kettering and Wellingborough?

Is there scope for a fifth Leicester service per hour (i.e. half an hour apart from the current hourly Corby service), or will Corby be going half hourly?

(sorry - this is just a lot of rambling questions - I honestly don't know what would be an acceptable compromise given the need for fast trains for longer distance passengers whilst providing acceptable frequencies for Bedfordshire etc (okay for the ECML and WCML where there's more of a "local" service to mop up passengers as far as Peterborough/ Rugby etc)

And yet the mean age in Nottingham is about 5 years less than Sheffield and the median is even further apart...

Maybe that's because life expectancy is better in Sheffield? Or we have more mature students?

Regardless, we've over fifty thousand students in Sheffield, so I don't buy the idea that Nottingham's "high student population" makes it stand out that much.

There are some figures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_enrolment

Forgive me if I've missed something, but does the East Midlands region not have its own airport?

...by the same logic, Yorkshire has its own airports yet direct services to Manchester Airport (same with Liverpool/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Teesside etc).

 

[HH]

Maybe that's because life expectancy is better in Sheffield? Or we have more mature students?

Regardless, we've over fifty thousand students in Sheffield, so I don't buy the idea that Nottingham's "high student population" makes it stand out that much.

Yes, the numbers for the two universities are similar, but Nottingham has a huge number of student nurses as well.

As you seem to like to quote facts, I'll give you some:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/students/2002/08/general_facts_about_nottingham.shtml

"Higher than average number of 10-29 year olds ". The numbers are a little out of date, but that remains true.

I don't know why you insist on arguing this; that Nottingham has an unusually high number of young people is a well-known fact to transport planners.

 

[edwin_m]

It does have its own airport but it's not particularly easy to access by rail using East Midlands Parkway.
I believe originally there was a bus service between the station and the airport arranged by EMT, however barely anyone used it so now it's just an hourly 6 seater taxi which only really works because of how bunched up the services to EM Parkway are.

One of the possible issues from adding more calls in at Luton Airport Parkway is that unless you had a pick up/set down only operation it would surely just be abstractive from Thameslink which I can't see being very popular given how much has been spent on the Thameslink Programme?

East Midlands Airport has regular buses from Derby, Long Eaton, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston and Nottingham stations (or nearby) but none from East Midlands Parkway. There are more flights from east Midlands than from Durham Tees Valley but they tend to be mainly aimed at the holiday rather than business market (eg flights to Barcelona but none to Madrid, which happens to be where I mostly need to fly to at present). Birmingham airport is a pain to get to by train from Nottingham because of the change at New Street, particularly in the early morning and late evening. It's only an hour on the M42 outside peak time, but last time I did that for an early flight it was a nightmare of spray and traffic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah - not good - thanks for confirming.

I'm not sure how we can square the circle of extending capacity on London - East Midlands services whilst retaining the direct services to Beeton and Long Eaton in that case.

They operate today with SDO combined with exhortations to get yourself in the right half of the train when a 5+5 Meridian is due to call at somewhere like Beeston.

I'm really not sure of the best solution, based on maintaining the current four/ hour from London to Leicester.

You need to stop at least one at Market Harborough.

There are separate markets at Bedford (80,000 people plus Marston Vale line, EW Rail in future), Luton (200,000+ depending on which neighbouring areas you want to include) and Luton Airport.

Do you go for the initial Midland Mainline option of two "fast" services (non stop London - Leicester) and two "slow" services per hour (so everywhere gets a direct link but long distance passengers are disproportionately on the "fast" services), or do you try to balance it with every service having one or two stops south of Leicester?

Since Nottingham and Derby trains are separate, I don't think that there are any particular markets that are more important than others (e.g. as long as Market Harborough gets one service per hour to Leicester then I don't think it matters whether that is a "Derby" train or a "Nottingham" one).

If you try to give Nottingham and Derby a direct link to (say) Luton Airport then are you okay if the Luton Airport - Leicester service is a rough 15/45 minute split? Because giving them a 30/30 split would mean making the London - Nottingham service a 15/45 split (and the same 15/45 split on London - Derby).

In some senses, stopping at the Airport (instead of Bedford or Luton) would be better, since they are less likely to be crowded by short distance London passengers (compared to Bedford/ Luton stops). But then there's a case for Bedford (since Luton/ Airport passengers can change there without doubling back). And Luton (town) is busier than Bedford or the Airport.

Kettering and Wellingborough are busier (almost a million passengers pa) than Market Harborough (700,000ish), so arguably more deserving of calls, but if the Corby services stop there then does that make more of an argument for Market Harborough getting two Leicester services per hour instead?

Is there much demand between "local" stations, or is skip stopping acceptable (i.e. Market Harborough to London is more important than giving it direct services each hour to Kettering and Wellingborough?

Is there scope for a fifth Leicester service per hour (i.e. half an hour apart from the current hourly Corby service), or will Corby be going half hourly?

(sorry - this is just a lot of rambling questions - I honestly don't know what would be an acceptable compromise given the need for fast trains for longer distance passengers whilst providing acceptable frequencies for Bedfordshire etc (okay for the ECML and WCML where there's more of a "local" service to mop up passengers as far as Peterborough/ Rugby etc)

I believe the intention is for Corby to go half-hourly - hardly seems worth electrifying otherwise. I presume the "sixth path" that gets talked about is the second Corby path, so there would still only be four north of Kettering.

Given the relatively poor line speed profiles compared with ECML and WCML, I believe the fastest possible London journey times for Derby, Nottingham and (until HS2 phase 2) Sheffield are of primary importance. The most logical timetable would have a fast for Sheffield leaving just before a semi for Nottingham, vice versa half an hour later with the Corbys probably midway between those pairs to fit with the 15min grid on Thameslink. I'd have the fasts non-stop to Leicester, the semis calling at Parkway, Kettering, and Market Harborough, and the Corbys calling at Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering. This should mean the Corby would be overtaken by the fast somewhere south of Kettering and arrive there just ahead of the next semi, providing connections from Luton and Bedford northwards.

 

[43096]

I think a few people need to look at the current timetable. South of Leicester there is no Sheffield "semi fast"; both Sheffield trains are fast St Pancras to Leicester off-peak. The Nottingham slow and the Corby are the stoppers with the fast Nottingham also calling Market Harborough to give that town 2tph to London.

 

[duffield]

Re various comments about short platforms at Beeston and Loughborough, I'm sure I read that these are to be extended (to accommodate 10 coaches I believe).

 

[Hairy Bear]

Re various comments about short platforms at Beeston and Loughborough, I'm sure I read that these are to be extended (to accommodate 10 coaches I believe).

Beeston is 6.
Loughboro' is 10 fast , 6 on slow.

 

[edwin_m]

I think a few people need to look at the current timetable. South of Leicester there is no Sheffield "semi fast"; both Sheffield trains are fast St Pancras to Leicester off-peak. The Nottingham slow and the Corby are the stoppers with the fast Nottingham also calling Market Harborough to give that town 2tph to London.

There isn't now, but I suggest there should be. Nottingham is a similar size to Sheffield (let's not start the argument of which is bigger) and extra stops have relatively more impact on a shorter journey, but both Nottingham trains make stops south of Leicester whereas neither Sheffield train does. There's also a need for connectivity between smaller stations south of Leicester and Derby/Sheffield. It's probably because Sheffield has its act together better on rail lobbying than Nottingham (see also HS2 routeing).

 

[thenorthern]

Will the franchise get new trains?

Given that Northern is now getting new trains the East Midlands Franchise has some of the oldest stock in the country and some of the oldest average age of stock. I think only the Class 222 is the only train built post 2000 and even they are 12 years old.

 

[7griffinjack]

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.

I am fully aware of whats constitutes as the actual city boundaries and the urban area's in each case but as I mentioned, these invisible local authority boundaries are irrelevant. They don't dictate which station inhabitants of each area will use. Many people in Rotherham (in the Sheffield Urban Area) will drive to and use Sheffield station in order to access direct rail services. The same is for people in Gedling or West Bridgford (both in the Nottingham Urban Area, but not the City of Nottingham). This is why, as I mentioned, urban areas are more useful in measuring populations with respect to the railways as well as many other services. So yes, it is true.

 

[thenorthern]

Sheffield Urban Area is much bigger than Nottingham Urban area and the city proper population is much more as well I think. One thing to remember as well with Sheffield is that the suburban services within the city are much better than all three of the East Midlands cities regardless of size.

For example Sheffield proper has six stations with regular services between many of them and a tram network with 3 lines and 48 stations.

Derby has three stations with only one served by at least one train per hour in each direction.

Nottingham has two stations with a tramway that has two lines and 50 stations.

Leicester has one station and nothing else.

Realistically the East Midlands should be pushing for a public transport executive like in other areas to improve services within the cities. Mind you though for transport the three cities don't work together very well as in 2004 East Midlands Airport was renamed Nottingham East Midlands Airport and Derby and Leicester city councils encouraged local residents to use other airports. The name change didn't last long though and in 2006 it was changed back to East Midlands Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will the franchise get new trains?

Given that Northern is now getting new trains the East Midlands Franchise has some of the oldest stock in the country and some of the oldest average age of stock. I think only the Class 222 is the only train built post 2000 and even they are 12 years old.

And the things are in a right state. They seriously need a full refurb.