A few observations.
HSTs; sorry, can't provide a link to it, but in the last few days I've seen reference to correspondance between Jake Kelly at EMT and Lillian Greenwood in which the former claims that EMT has undertaken a tendering exercise on behalf of the DfT to have work carried out on HSTs to make them more suitable for operation after the end of this year. It doesn't include replacement of manual doors with power operated ones.
New trains for MML; the DfT's ITT specifically stated in clause 5.9.4 (page 81) that bidders had to offer bi-mode trains for the operation of inter-city services on the MML between London St
Pancras International and Nottingham/Sheffield which are capable of operating “Class 222
timed services from the as bid TSR1 and TSR2 on the Midland Main Line with no detriment to
immediate and end to end journey times”. I've checked the Sectional Appendix for the MML again this morning, and there are still significant stretches with differential speed restrictions for HSTs, and as the Hitachi bi-modes are NOT listed amongst the classes which can operate at these higher speeds, I believe that the Hitachi trains are unable to meet this requirement of the ITT; moreover, I believe that the DfT recognised this, as sub-clause 5.9.5 a) of the ITT requires a demonstrator train suitable for track testing to be delivered by 31 December 2021, with an introduction into service date of 30 April 2022. The Sectional Appendix has just been updated, and therefore the situation regarding the Hitachi bi-modes is current.
Corby services and May 2020 HST replacements; electric services are shown as being introduced from December 2020, and therefore it is unlikely that any Meridians will be available by May 2020; therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that off-lease class 180s will be the only suitable trains available to replace HSTs.
Extension of some services northwards to Leeds; it will be interesting to see when these are as - unless there is a need to transfer trains to that area (or Crofton) for maintenace - there no longer seems to be a need to operate north of Sheffield (unless the original Midland Mainline idea of serving Barnsley is being resurected!). However, there have been press reports in the past that Leicester/Leicestershire local authorities have wanted improved rail connectivity between Leicester and Leeds, and so this might be a response to some pressure from them.
Regional services; the Railway Gazette reports that the DfT has stated that Abellio will replace the ENTIRE regional fleet with faster, more modern, refurbished trains which will provide a higher speed, better connected, regional timetable. The latter precludes the use of class 185s as they are unable to take advantage of the many enhanced speed restrictions in the area served by East Midlands Railway. Moreover, does it not imply that the class 158s will go? Replacements? How many 170s are coming off lease? Will the present trains be replaced by 175s from Wales or have they been promised elsewhere?
Services; note no mention of Robin Hood line services being extended over the old LD&ECR eastwards from Shirebrook; I guess this means that it's not going to happen.
However, what has been published thus far is silent on one of the other key requirements of the ITT, namely providing better cross-Nottingham connections; moreover, the existing Matlock - Newark service is just shown as Matlock - Nottingham, and the Leicester - Lincoln is just shown as Leicester - Nottingham. Therefore, I guess that once the standstill period is over and more information is made available, we will see that some of the services presently shown as terminating in Nottingham will be merged.
The ITT specifically asked for proposals for splitting the Liverpool - Norwich service and enhancing the Derby - Crewe line, so its not surprising that they have been mentioned in the press release, but it does seem strange that no mention has been made on this requirement.