East Midlands franchise prospectus

[7griffinjack]

You originally said that "...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..."

Again please tell where these "many outlying villages" are and what percentage you think they are of the population of Sheffield.
High and Low Bradfield are the only Sheffield settlements in the Peak District and have less than 200 people between them.

I was referring to a third of Sheffield's area lies within the Peak District, not the population. Examples of what you call 'mythical villages' that are outside the main urban area include Stocksbridge, High/Low Bradfield, Dungworth, Wharncliffe etc. I didn't state that all of these outlying villages were situated in the peak district, just a third of the local authority's area is.

And to answer your question about the population of these areas - 95% of the city of Sheffield's population lies within the main urban area so it doesn't take a genius to work out that 5% of the city's population lies outside the urban area. But do remember that the city's urban area spills over into neighbouring local authorities such as Rotherham - which pushes up the urban area population - but still not enough to beat Nottingham's urban area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if we're going to include places like Ripley in Nottingham's urban area, let's include Barnsley and Chesterfield in Sheffield's.

These urban areas have no real meaning. I doubt if anyone in Heanor for example has even heard of the Nottingham Urban Area.

No because Barnsley and Chesterfield are separated by enough un-built land to not class as part of Sheffield's urban area, whereas Ripley etc aren't when it comes to Nottingham.

Settlements separated by an un-built area of less than 200m constitute as the same urban area. I'm not making it up, these are simply facts whether you agree with it or not.

 

[thenorthern]

Remember its not just one urban area or metropolitan area with a PTE for example with Travel South Yorkshire they organize trains in Sheffield, Doncaster and Barnsley. With Metro they do it in Leeds but also Braford, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Hebden Bridge. Network West Midlands covers Birmingham, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Soilhull and Coventry.

With Nottingham however there is no coordination with Derbyshire county council over travel with Ripley and its really only used for census purposes the Nottingham Urban Area and regardless of size the Nottingham transport department doesn't really care about train travel in Ripley or even at Netherfield station as anything outside the border is nothing to do with them and there is little coordination with transport departments and no PTE.

 

[unlevel42]

I was referring to a third of Sheffield's area lies within the Peak District, not the population. Examples of what you call 'mythical villages' that are outside the main urban area include Stocksbridge, High/Low Bradfield, Dungworth, Wharncliffe etc. I didn't state that all of these outlying villages were situated in the peak district, just a third of the local authority's area is.

And to answer your question about the population of these areas - 95% of the city of Sheffield's population lies within the main urban area so it doesn't take a genius to work out that 5% of the city's population lies outside the urban area. But do remember that the city's urban area spills over into neighbouring local authorities such as Rotherham - which pushes up the urban area population - but still not enough to beat Nottingham's urban area.

You said: "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." That is clearly referring to population and that is misleading.

Even if you made a mistake and intended to say ...Sheffield's area lies within the Peak District..., the message would still be misleading as there is no network of "...incorporate(d) villages miles out." in the Sheffield bit of the Peak District.

You still want to give the impression that in the very large area of Sheffield to the west of the urban area there are "many villages" well there are not. The settlements that do exist are tiny. The only place you have added is Dungworth. Significant? At 0.00015%?
The anomaly of the town of Stocksbridge/Deepcar has been mentioned earlier, as has Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe and their situation in the same steep sided valley.. All have a 10 /15 min frequency bus service to the tram terminus.

It might not take a genius to subtract, but it takes common sense and local knowledge to realise that 5% of the Sheffield city population does live in that "...third of Sheffield's (which)lies within the peak district so incorporates villages miles out...".

 

[Qwerty133]

And having backup staff in case of illness would be trickier - so more chance of closed ticket offices.

I'd actually say the opposite... (at the minute EMT/LM have an incentive to knick staff from these stations to cover sickness elsewhere, or to dump their worst staff at these stations (as the customers are mostly of another TOCs))
NB: other than for a short period a few years ago I have seen no evidence as to this being what they are doing, and in fact these stations often get the more helpful and knowledgeable staff

 

[kevjs]

However, things are not so good once you get outside the city boundary or those areas included within the city for ticketing purposes.

As far as public transport goes the city boundary (i.e. where the basic Robin Hood fares work, and NCT primarily serves) does not match that of the City council - for PT West Bridgford, Beeston, Arnold, Gedling, Carlton, Netherfield are all firmly within the city (the City Council's community bus service even includes West Bridgford within it's reach - and not just as a destination, but the substantial part of the L22 and L23 routes which take well over an hour to meander round Clifton and West Bridgford).

Using that, more realistic, urban boundary you've got the following rail stations within the city:-

• Nottingham
• Bulwell
• Carlton
• Netherfield
• Beeston
• (Rushcliffe Halt)

While I can understand the arguments that places like Ripley aren't part of the Nottingham urban area, somewhere like Long Eaton is less clear cut - and if/when HS2 and the proposed redevelopment of the land between Long Eaton and Toton come to pass Long Eaton will certainly be part of the contiguous Nottingham Urban area.

The following stations are in the larger area for which Nottingham is a significant travel to work destination and should really be operating services that share branding and ticketing with NET:-

• Long Eaton
• Ilkeston (if/when it opens*)
• Radcliffe-on-Trent
• Bingham
• Hucknall
• Langley Mill
• Burton Joyce
• Lowdham**

* I've got a few colleagues that are looking forward to this one opening, rather than having to trundle down the A610 to Pheonix Park to pick up NET every morning.

** Bit more tenuous, and to be fair most of the people I know who use(d) this do so as a rail-head to Newark and Lincoln (much to the annoyance of the locals judging by the notes they've had left on there cars before now) - surprised there's no A612 link to a P&R site next to Burton Joyce station TBH.

If you are a mad-man and choose to drive from Long Eaton to Trent Bridge via the roads on the northern side of the river than you certainly stay in the urban area for the duration (although when I do that journey I go A453/A50/B6540 as it's so much quicker and that is certainly rather rural). By that time I dare say that Hucknall and Stapelford will unarguably be part of the Nottingham urban area too...

 

[muug1982]

I've always thought the Y shape of the MML makes it ideal for splitting services. Timetable modelling / pathing isn't my thing, but assume the southern section is most congested would it be feasible to have:

Half Hourly 2*4/5 car, slow to Kettering, calling all MML stations, one portion operates clockwise loop Market Harborough, Leicester, Melton, Corby, other half works anti-clockwise.

Half Hourly 2*4/5 car, non-stop to Leicester, then one portion to Sheffield and one to Nottingham.

Hourly to Sheffield, avoiding Derby / Nottingham, calling Kettering / Market Harborough.

 

[AndyW33]

I've always thought the Y shape of the MML makes it ideal for splitting services. Timetable modelling / pathing isn't my thing, but assume the southern section is most congested would it be feasible to have:

Half Hourly 2*4/5 car, slow to Kettering, calling all MML stations, one portion operates clockwise loop Market Harborough, Leicester, Melton, Corby, other half works anti-clockwise.

Half Hourly 2*4/5 car, non-stop to Leicester, then one portion to Sheffield and one to Nottingham.

Hourly to Sheffield, avoiding Derby / Nottingham, calling Kettering / Market Harborough.

Where would the combined Sheffield/Nottingham trains split and rejoin?
Leicester, Loughborough, or East Midlands Parkway? Bear in mind the current service provides the only trains between Loughborough/East Midlands Parkway and Derby, and 50% of the Nottingham trains.
Also a bit of an issue - electrification is not authorised between Corby and Syston via Melton. As at the present rate of progress Network Rail will be doing well to complete the electrification that has already been authorised by the end of 2024, when do you think they will be able to start work on this extra very rural line, that will also need resignalling? Or should they order bi-modes just for this purpose?

 

[edwin_m]

At peak times the demand for both Nottingham and Sheffield would be too much for a half-train, so these routes both need full-length trains. Also the split and join probably adds 2min to the journey time of the faster portion and 5min to that of the slower one, as it has to arrive before and depart after the other portion. Split and join may be an option on the slower trains, which probably don't need to be 10-car north of Leicester and could provide connectivity to both routes instead. However these only run as 5-car in the off-peak so would need a bit increase in demand from south of Leicester to justify running coupled sets all day.

The handful of London trains via Melton are essentially stock positioning moves because the current Corby sets are based in Derby. The electric trains working the Corby service in future will probably be based further south. I don't see these as justifying either electrification or bi-modes - they will simply cease to operate with a small chance of either a connecting service to Corby or an open access operator stepping in. The same applies to the Erewash Valley where timetable adjustments could provide decent connections at Nottingham to replace the few Leeds-London trains which again are essentially stock positioning.

On the conurbation size question, the key point is how many people will end up using which route if they take a train to London. Long Eaton, Derby, East Midlands Parkway, Grantham and Newark are viable options for passengers from the Nottingham conurbation going to London especially if they are driving and looking for a station with easy road access. All (except possibly Parkway) will result in passengers not ending up on the Nottingham-London trains. With Sheffield I would expect the range of alternatives to be less - probably only various ECML stations from the north and east of the city, so a higher proportion of the total will be on the MML via Derby. On the other hand, a longer journey time will reduce the total number of Sheffield area to London passengers compared with Nottingham.

It's also worth remembering that if HS2 is built with the Sheffield spur it will wipe out London MML traffic from Sheffield and Chesterfield. The effect on Nottingham or Derby to London will be less (from either city centre the journey via Toton is only slightly faster with the inconvenience of a change of train) and there will be no effect at all on Leicester to London. So the long term plan for the MML will be to focus on the East Midlands "proper" rather than South Yorkshire.

 

[7griffinjack]

You said: "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." That is clearly referring to population and that is misleading.

Even if you made a mistake and intended to say ...Sheffield's area lies within the Peak District..., the message would still be misleading as there is no network of "...incorporate(d) villages miles out." in the Sheffield bit of the Peak District.

You still want to give the impression that in the very large area of Sheffield to the west of the urban area there are "many villages" well there are not. The settlements that do exist are tiny. The only place you have added is Dungworth. Significant? At 0.00015%?
The anomaly of the town of Stocksbridge/Deepcar has been mentioned earlier, as has Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe and their situation in the same steep sided valley.. All have a 10 /15 min frequency bus service to the tram terminus.

It might not take a genius to subtract, but it takes common sense and local knowledge to realise that 5% of the Sheffield city population does live in that "...third of Sheffield's (which)lies within the peak district so incorporates villages miles out...".

Yes I was referring to Sheffield's area. Maybe it could have been been worded a little differently. Even when referring to area, it isn't misleading. There are parts of Sheffield in areas such as the Peak District and non national park areas that are outside of the main urban area. That was the point I was making as some people in this forum can't quite understand the difference between a city boundary/urban area/metropolitan area/travel to work area etc etc. I was making the point that the city population shouldn't be used at face value to justify transport usage as it is very complex business.

 

[anti-pacer]

I was referring to a third of Sheffield's area lies within the Peak District, not the population. Examples of what you call 'mythical villages' that are outside the main urban area include Stocksbridge, High/Low Bradfield, Dungworth, Wharncliffe etc. I didn't state that all of these outlying villages were situated in the peak district, just a third of the local authority's area is.

And to answer your question about the population of these areas - 95% of the city of Sheffield's population lies within the main urban area so it doesn't take a genius to work out that 5% of the city's population lies outside the urban area. But do remember that the city's urban area spills over into neighbouring local authorities such as Rotherham - which pushes up the urban area population - but still not enough to beat Nottingham's urban area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No because Barnsley and Chesterfield are separated by enough un-built land to not class as part of Sheffield's urban area, whereas Ripley etc aren't when it comes to Nottingham.

Settlements separated by an un-built area of less than 200m constitute as the same urban area. I'm not making it up, these are simply facts whether you agree with it or not.

Well there's more than 200m from the edge of Nottingham to Nuthall, near Junction 26 that's not built on.

Does this theory mean that Leeds and Bradford are classed as one urban area?

Also, in railway terms, just because there's one continuous string of towns linking to a city, doesn't necessarily mean residents will use that city's station. When I lived in Ilkeston, my ex and I used Derby station for all points north and south, and only Nottingham if we were going east. Also, my friends in Colne, Lancashire, generally use Keighley station for journeys to London rather than travelling via Preston. It's subjective and based on convenience rather than being part of some unofficial government urban area.

As for "Travel to Work Areas", well they are misleading. York could be classed as being in London's "Travel to Work Area" as some people commute daily. I work with someone from Derby, but they don't come under Wakefield's "Travel to Work Area".

What would be more interesting to know are the numbers of people commuting into Sheffield and Nottingham by rail each day. I bet Sheffield has more.

 

[thenorthern]

Can we leave the whole City/Urban/Metropolitan population thing.

The fact is that regardless of size the transport policy for Sheffield is under a joint board with Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley councils under the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive which is a joint public body that coordinates public transport within the Metropolitan County of South Yorkshire and will liaise with TOCs and the DfT to improve rail transport within South Yorkshire. This includes public transport in Rotherham which isn't part of Sheffield City Council.

Its not worth arguing about some statistical areas of the ONS to do with population within a certain area that isn't covered by a single administrative unit and have little or no meaning with coordinating rail services within an area. There is no Nottingham Urban Area Public Transport Executive or a transport board for that matter as its not an administrative unit its just something drawn up by the ONS to measure population.

I hate to break it to you all but Nottingham City Council aren't too bothered about services at Long Eaton station even though its within the Nottingham Urban Area but Derbyshire County Council are even though they are based in Matlock and Long Eaton isn't part of the Matlock Urban Area. hock:

If you don't like the way that public transport is coordinated in your area write to your MP and ask for it to be changed.

 

[7griffinjack]

Well there's more than 200m from the edge of Nottingham to Nuthall, near Junction 26 that's not built on.

Don't shoot the messenger, that's just the criteria for an urban area and I obviously don't know the details of every piece of land in them.

Does this theory mean that Leeds and Bradford are classed as one urban area?

Erm, yes they are - the West Yorkshire Urban Area - home to 1.7 million people..

Also, in railway terms, just because there's one continuous string of towns linking to a city, doesn't necessarily mean residents will use that city's station. When I lived in Ilkeston, my ex and I used Derby station for all points north and south, and only Nottingham if we were going east. Also, my friends in Colne, Lancashire, generally use Keighley station for journeys to London rather than travelling via Preston. It's subjective and based on convenience rather than being part of some unofficial government urban area.

As for "Travel to Work Areas", well they are misleading. York could be classed as being in London's "Travel to Work Area" as some people commute daily. I work with someone from Derby, but they don't come under Wakefield's "Travel to Work Area".

What would be more interesting to know are the numbers of people commuting into Sheffield and Nottingham by rail each day. I bet Sheffield has more.

I completely agree that it is all subjective, but I was simply stating that levels of rail usage shouldn't be judged on the principle of local authority populations as it doesn't always reflect the amount of people using them as we have seen.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I hate to break it to you all but Nottingham City Council aren't too bothered about services at Long Eaton station even though its within the Nottingham Urban Area but Derbyshire County Council are even though they are based in Matlock and Long Eaton isn't part of the Matlock Urban Area. hock:

What has Matlock got to do with it? Would it make a difference to your argument if Derbyshire County Council were based in Borrowash?

 

[Thebaz]

I'm probably not the only one to think that it might make sense upon electrification for Thameslink to provide Corby services in some form by extending the Brighton-Bedford services. I'm sure that one (or maybe even 2) of the 4tph between Luton and Bedford can afford to drop the intermediate stops. I'm not privy to the stats but does a small village like Harlington actually need 4tph in each direction? It strikes me as a little frivolous.

In terms of the difficulty of arranging calling patterns that allow for the fastest trains to Sheffield, I will not be surprised if one of the fast Sheffield services calls at Bedford after completion of the central section of EW rail. But Bedford is a smaller town than Luton and it makes no sense to me to remove MML stops at Luton as some people are advocating - it is a huge town, in fact the 4th largest in whole country. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8705932/Britains-20-biggest-towns.html I can see it is somewhat awkward to stop MML trains at both Bedford and Luton and it is rather unfortunate geography that places two important towns on the same route within close proximity to each other. The airport station adds a further complication. You can bet if Luton was where Bedford is and about to receive EW rail then most trains would stop there. It really ought to be receiving more MML trains and let Thameslink deal with the airport.

 

[ashworth]

I do wonder how many passengers from Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester etc are actually aware of the Bedford to Brighton Thameslink services. An elderly relative of mine would not travel by train to visit friends on the South Coast because she was terrified of crossing London by herself. Once she found out that she could travel from Nottingham to Brighton with just one change of train at Bedford she now does the journey regularly. She prefers to get the stopping train from Nottingham and change at Bedford as to her it is far less confusing than changing at St. Pancras.

The Bedford to Brighton service is very useful for people from The East Midland and South Yorkshire to reach destinations south of London including Gatwick Airport but I do wonder, even after all these years of it running, how many people actually know about it. Using the online jourrney planners, especially for booking cheaper priced advance tickets, you are often routed across London via Victoria. It is easy to change at St Pancras, but perhaps for less confident travellers or those with lots off luggage, a change at Bedford is even easier, as well releaving the pressure on St. Pancras. With advertising up here in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire and some of the faster trains stopping at Bedford could more use be made of this facility of reaching Gatwick and the South Coast without changing trains in London.

 

[thenorthern]

Has there been any mention of any new services?

Under the 2007 franchise proposals I think there was talk of a reintroduction of the Matlock to London service although this never materialised. The Lincoln to London service was however introduced.

Given that electrification for the Midland Main Line has been delayed I don't think there will be any new inter-city trains until electrification has been complete.

What has Matlock got to do with it? Would it make a difference to your argument if Derbyshire County Council were based in Borrowash?

What I was trying to point out was that people were making a big deal about the Nottingham Urban Area (which includes Long Eaton) with the size of Nottingham and how it should affect transport policy but I was merely saying was that a ONS Urban Area means little or nothing to transport policy and the local transport department for Long Eaton is in Matlock which has nothing to do with Nottingham.

 

[43074]

Given that electrification for the Midland Main Line has been delayed I don't think there will be any new inter-city trains until electrification has been complete.

I think there will be new trains whatever happens - there's been speculation that new high speed diesel trains will be ordered to replace the HSTs, for instance, and certainly bi-modes are a possibility.

 

[Kneedown]

I think there will be new trains whatever happens - there's been speculation that new high speed diesel trains will be ordered to replace the HSTs, for instance, and certainly bi-modes are a possibility.

I'd say bi-modes are a certainty given that there are currently no plans to wire up Corby-Syston, Erewash Valley and Beighton.

 

[edwin_m]

I think there will be new trains whatever happens - there's been speculation that new high speed diesel trains will be ordered to replace the HSTs, for instance, and certainly bi-modes are a possibility.

Even though I'd benefit from them personally I would say new straight diesels would be a huge waste of public money. We can still see a time when there is a surfeit of high speed diesels - this forum has debated at length where the 222s might go after MML electrification without finding a really satisfactory answer. This surfeit will still happen, just a few years later than we originally thought.

It is still quite possible that the franchise soon to be bid for will be the last that operates diesels on the MML, so to me it makes most sense to refurbish some HSTs for a few more years and probably look for derogations from the more onerous 2020 requirements on the grounds of limited remaining time in service. This would also have the benefit of leaving some HSTs in something like original condition for the preservationists!

 

[CommuterPigeon]

The problem with bi-modes is that there doesn't seem to be an option at the moment that allows 125mph running in diesel mode, coupled with the fact that the trains would need to stop somewhere to raise the pantograph it means Sheffield and Nottingham will get slower journey times.

With Corby electrification that will free up those 222s to do Sheffield/Nottingham and probably remove the need for HSTs except during peak.

 

[kevjs]

The problem with bi-modes is that there doesn't seem to be an option at the moment that allows 125mph running in diesel mode,

What is the limit of the AT300s in Diesel mode?

coupled with the fact that the trains would need to stop somewhere to raise the pantograph it means Sheffield and Nottingham will get slower journey times.

Isn't a part of the IEP specification that they can raise and lower the panto-graph at speed? i.e. no need to stop at the end of the wires.

With Corby electrification that will free up those 222s to do Sheffield/Nottingham and probably remove the need for HSTs except during peak.

So start the hybrids on Corby, Peak Time Stoppers, and Liverpool to Norwich, then as Nottingham is wired services up to Nottingham too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the limit of the AT300s in Diesel mode?

125mph so far as I knew, particularly if you don't have the derated "DfT" edition which might take too long to get there.

There is a case for regional bi-modes capable of 110mph on 25kV but 75mph ish on diesel, but this is not it

 

[Kneedown]

The current maximum linespeed on any of the MML diversions where electrification isn't currently planned is 90mph, so 125mph capable on diesel is not necessary.

 

[CommuterPigeon]

Fairly sure the AT300s can only do 110mph on diesel, might even be only 100mph. Not sure about raising pantographs on the move but I can't imagine Network Rail would be too happy with it, too much risk of it going wrong and ripping the wires down.

The diversionary routes might only be 90mph but as the mainline isn't likely to be electrified north of Kettering during the next franchise not having 125mph capability would be an issue.

 

[thenorthern]

So start the hybrids on Corby, Peak Time Stoppers, and Liverpool to Norwich, then as Nottingham is wired services up to Nottingham too.

Unlikely as it would only be a short stretch into Nottingham that would be electrified, Clay Cross to Nottingham I don't think is planned for electrification.

 

[Class 170101]

Has there been any mention of any new services?

Under the 2007 franchise proposals I think there was talk of a reintroduction of the Matlock to London service although this never materialised.

Can't see Matlock ever having services to London unless the whole route is upgraded to heavier trains than Sprinters at a viable speed I am afraid.

 

[thenorthern]

Some of the things I think a new operator may look at:

A regular hourly Leeds to London service I think could now become a reality under the new franchise.

I think as well Cleethorpes to London could happen as well as an extension of the London St Pancras to Lincoln Central train.

More trains to Manchester could happen as the current service is rather poor as it takes 20 min longer going via Sheffield.

Re-introduction of direct trains to Burton-on-Trent could happen as currently London Midland are taking most East Midlands Trains market from the town with much cheaper fares and the same amount of changes.

Introduction of direct Uttoxeter to London trains - it may seem unlikely but currently connections to London trains at Derby are very poor meaning most people from the town travel via Stoke-on-Trent or drive to Rugeley Trent Valley causing EMT to lose revenue.

Improving services around Stoke-on-Trent, EMT is the de facto local operator within Stoke-on-Trent as its the only one that serves all open stations within The Potteries and Stoke-on-Trent City Council have been looking to improve services within the city.

 

[edwin_m]

Some of the things I think a new operator may look at:

A regular hourly Leeds to London service I think could now become a reality under the new franchise.

Very unlikely. It would be much slower than ECML so would only be used for through journeys if silly fares were offered, which wouldn't be viable for the TOC. XC and Northern Connect will provide services between Leeds and the East Midlands and there are no spare paths between Sheffield and Leeds. The existing EMT Leeds trains are only run because that is where the depot happens to be.

I think as well Cleethorpes to London could happen as well as an extension of the London St Pancras to Lincoln Central train.

It's possible the once-a-day service could be extended as this doesn't require any extra units just one starting from the depot earlier and getting back later. But again much quicker through journeys are possible via the ECML, which would rule out a more frequent service at other times of the day when extra units would be needed.

More trains to Manchester could happen as the current service is rather poor as it takes 20 min longer going via Sheffield.

Re-introduction of direct trains to Burton-on-Trent could happen as currently London Midland are taking most East Midlands Trains market from the town with much cheaper fares and the same amount of changes.

Introduction of direct Uttoxeter to London trains - it may seem unlikely but currently connections to London trains at Derby are very poor meaning most people from the town travel via Stoke-on-Trent or drive to Rugeley Trent Valley causing EMT to lose revenue.

Improving services around Stoke-on-Trent, EMT is the de facto local operator within Stoke-on-Trent as its the only one that serves all open stations within The Potteries and Stoke-on-Trent City Council have been looking to improve services within the city.

There are various options for an extra service avoiding Sheffield that could make sense but depend on Northern Hub creating the infrastructure for more paths (and no sign of anything happening on this at present). Rail North may want to use the extra path to strengthen the Manchester-Sheffield service instead, and as it is their territory their view probably outweighs any East Midlands opinion.

Re-introduction of direct trains to Burton-on-Trent could happen as currently London Midland are taking most East Midlands Trains market from the town with much cheaper fares and the same amount of changes.

Introduction of direct Uttoxeter to London trains - it may seem unlikely but currently connections to London trains at Derby are very poor meaning most people from the town travel via Stoke-on-Trent or drive to Rugeley Trent Valley causing EMT to lose revenue.

Again this is difficult to do except perhaps as a once-a-day service as it would need extra units and would have to either extend a train terminating at Derby (there are none during the day) or couple to one. Like Lincoln/Cleethorpes this might become impossible when electrification finally happens, if the operator ends up with electrics rather than bi-modes. The solution to this one is to try to make the connections at Derby work better.

Improving services around Stoke-on-Trent, EMT is the de facto local operator within Stoke-on-Trent as its the only one that serves all open stations within The Potteries and Stoke-on-Trent City Council have been looking to improve services within the city.

As an absolute minimum all Crewe-Derby trains should be two-car and I believe they should be extended back to Nottingham (diverting one of the XC trains to avoid Derby and free up capacity). But local journeys within the Potteries won't bring in much revenue and certainly don't on their own justify running extra trains over the longer distance to Derby. The longer journeys passengers might use are probably to Birmingham and Manchester rather than Derby, suggesting that perhaps Northern and LM should be making the extra stops here. Especially if not extended to Nottingham, Crewe-Derby probably sits better with Northern.

 

[43074]

Some of the things I think a new operator may look at:

A regular hourly Leeds to London service I think could now become a reality under the new franchise.

Highly unlikely - the good paths are being taken by the Leeds to Nottingham services from December 2019 and the need for this is somewhat minimal as a result of this development

I think as well Cleethorpes to London could happen as well as an extension of the London St Pancras to Lincoln Central train.

No chance - where's the evidence to suggest this will happen? It will always be quicker to go to Kings Cross via Newark or Doncaster. More local services are a possibility but there's no way this is likely to happen.

More trains to Manchester could happen as the current service is rather poor as it takes 20 min longer going via Sheffield.

A possibility but probably depends on re-signalling on the Hope Valley Line.

Re-introduction of direct trains to Burton-on-Trent could happen as currently London Midland are taking most East Midlands Trains market from the town with much cheaper fares and the same amount of changes.

Introduction of direct Uttoxeter to London trains - it may seem unlikely but currently connections to London trains at Derby are very poor meaning most people from the town travel via Stoke-on-Trent or drive to Rugeley Trent Valley causing EMT to lose revenue.

Highly unlikely

Improving services around Stoke-on-Trent, EMT is the de facto local operator within Stoke-on-Trent as its the only one that serves all open stations within The Potteries and Stoke-on-Trent City Council have been looking to improve services within the city.

Unlikely to be a priority.

 

[thenorthern]

With Stoke-on-Trent I think as the people building HS2 have decided that the 19th largest Urban Area doesn't need an HS2 station the city council will push for more funding from Westminster for better train services and they wanted to double the number of trains to Uttoxeter.

Mind you though service improvements probably won't happen as Stoke-on-Trent is often overlooked by Westminster as they prefer to focus on London and their "Northern Powerhouse" which is probably why the city voted to leave the EU in very large numbers to tell Westminster to stop ignoring them.