East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

[grumpyoldman01]

As most (all?) members of this forum will know, DB has indicated that it is contemplating disposing of Arriva; and, of course, Grand Central is part of Arriva.

DB has already closed down one open-access operator, the Wrexham & Shropshire; any rumours if it is contemplating closing Grand Central as part of its Arriva disposal plans?

That would free up some more class 180s; but would 14x5-car sets be sufficient to replace all of EMT's HSTs?

Incidentally, my wife isn't an "anorak" and so to her a train is a train; however, she travelled on a Hull Trains 180 between Doncaster and Hull - and thought it was one of the nicest trains she had ever been on!

 

[johnnychips]

^ I think the idea is that DB are hoping to sell Arriva as a job lot rather than rationalising or selling off parts of it, so when/if that happens the new owners will decide. I can’t imagine this will be a quick process.

Your wife is right. 180s are excellent trains - when they are working! It is their reliability and length that is concerning some posters.

 

[Kettledrum]

Thinking about it, there's basically only one 43/4 diagram (DY022) as the other set doesn't actually come out until 1945.
The May timetable could release a 222, to work DY022. Plus diverting another 222 to work the 1945 NOT - STP instead of running ECS to Etches Park after the evening peak.
Then 3 out of the 4 180s could be used on the 43/0s that stable at Cricklewood during the day, leaving 5 core HST diagrams.

That would free up some more class 180s; but would 14x5-car sets be sufficient to replace all of EMT's HSTs?

There's a huge IF here, but 14 x 5 180's (IF they were to come available) could cover the 5 core HST diagrams running in pairs which would provide a better chance of a train running (albeit short) if a unit failed.

 

[Verulamius]

The 180s rumour has also been mentioned in Rail.

 

[yorksrob]

Alleged by two people who have never posted before and therefore have no track record. Given that the contract award is still in the standstill period it is unlikely anyone will be in a position to post anything about the franchise’s future plans beyond the original DfT press release.

Indeed, but it wouldn't be the first time a strange decision was taken on the railway. The people who have alleged this, whilst not prolific posters, have been forum members for some time, and do appear to be to be connected to the railway, so whilst acknowledging that these decisions are still alleged, it's probably premature to dismiss them out of hand.

The other HSTs are being made compliant, I was replying to @yorksrob who was complaining about the use of the 180s, but they are needed to replace the non compliant ex GC HSTs.

Thinking about it, there's basically only one 43/4 diagram (DY022) as the other set doesn't actually come out until 1945.
The May timetable could release a 222, to work DY022. Plus diverting another 222 to work the 1945 NOT - STP instead of running ECS to Etches Park after the evening peak.
Then 3 out of the 4 180s could be used on the 43/0s that stable at Cricklewood during the day, leaving 5 core HST diagrams.

Given the reliability issues of the 180's, I still think it's a questionable decision to use the 180's even in this way, however it is at least a shorter wait until the 222's are released from the Corby services.

 

[yorksrob]

There's a huge IF here, but 14 x 5 180's (IF they were to come available) could cover the 5 core HST diagrams running in pairs which would provide a better chance of a train running (albeit short) if a unit failed.

But how ? What would GC run. And if the answer's HST's, how come they're alright for Grant Central but not EMT ?

The 180s rumour has also been mentioned in Rail.

Which 180's rumour ? The one about replacing the GC HST's, or the one about replacing the whole fleet ?

 

[kevjs]

7/8 people per train might get bit excessive. the best solution is busier trains to help guarantee 1 no-issue user per set of doors.
IC70s are bad for many people with mobility issues.

Not just those with mobility issues - the only way I've found I can get into Mediæval torture devices (also known as seats) on the EMT HST's is to stand on them (not exactly easy when you're as tall as I am) and then slide down into the seat. And if it's Airline style it's even worse as I can't get my feet anywhere near the floor as they get rammed into the back of the seat below. Annoying as you can see if the arm rests weren't fixed I could probably swivel into the seat (like I can on the cramped 158s) - once you finally get into them you end up with your shoulders being hemmed in for the entire journey.

I always book on the stoppers as they are usually the far comfier Meridians (even though the headroom is lacking in places).

 

[Wolfie]

The opposition and select committees can moan and groan, but they can't overturn DfT decisions.
In any case the "industry" is supposed to come up with solutions, not be dictated by the DfT.

Moaning and groaning in extremis means the dismissal of the Secretary of State. In such a situation careers are certainly not enhanced...

 

[cactustwirly]

Didn't GTR have to spend a lot of money getting the 442s up to scratch, when they went off-lease.
I know that GWR did repairs on their HSTs when they were sent off lease.

 

[Wolfie]

I suspect the franchise award will go ahead regardless of Stagecoach challenges but that there may be ramifications in the future - I suspect they're far more bothered by the being disallowed outright than losing this particular competition. I may be wrong and the whole thing may come to a halt but EMT have written to their staff explaining the handover and mobilisation process to Abellio regardless.

If Stagecoach challenge legally DfT would be 'brave' (if the Court doesn't specifically order a freeze on placing the contract which it almost certainly would) in progressing as by doing so they would be increasing the damages payable significantly. That would attract the attention of yet another Parliamentary Ctte, probably the most powerful of the lot, namely the Public Accounts Ctte. Depts really do not want to get on the wrong side of them...

 

[whhistle]

They need to book assistance 24hrs before they travel, which is plainly discrimination.
Then disabled people will be unable to use the toilets because EMT HSTs do not have a compliant toilet

Ah ha, but someone who is deaf could use the toilets on the HSTs with no problem, surely? This is where waters muddy further as different disabilities have different requirements.

However, an offer of booking assistance (there's no requirement!) isn't discrimination. People who could book but choose not to are not turned away from the train.

You could say those people who have to check in at the airport are being discriminated against. They're not. They just can't take advantage of other solutions. If the airline offered online check in only then that's a different issue.

 

[whhistle]

But what if the operator is unable to provide assistance?
Then the customer cannot travel, when they could travel on a compliant train such as a 180, without assistance.

I can't think of one train that doesn't require some sort of ramp.

Whether it be an HST or a 180, a person in a wheelchair will need a ramp to board; therefore some sort of assistance will be required. I mean, you could go as far as saying the 180 isn't compliant as it still requires external assistance for someone in a wheelchair to board.

I have no idea of the workings of people in wheelchairs and DOO operations at unstaffed stations but I also can't think of a single news item where a train company (either the TOC or the station operator) is "unable to provide assistance".

 

[Qwerty133]

Given the reliability issues of the 180's, I still think it's a questionable decision to use the 180's even in this way, however it is at least a shorter wait until the 222's are released from the Corby services.

I'm not convinced that the 180s are any less reliable than the ex GC HSTs. It needs to be remembered that HT requires quite intensive use of 3 of their 4 units on a daily basis, whereas if they were replacing the ex GC HSTs at EMT only 2 units would be required per day and even then those units would be lightly used.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced that the 180s are any less reliable than the ex GC HSTs. It needs to be remembered that HT requires quite intensive use of 3 of their 4 units on a daily basis, whereas if they were replacing the ex GC HSTs at EMT only 2 units would be required per day and even then those units would be lightly used.

Well, there could be an element of that. The more intensively the use, the more likelihood of problems.

That said, the GC HST's were fairly intensively used when with GC, and whilst they had their problems, they didn't seem to be to the extent that HT are having with their 180's currently.

 

[cactustwirly]

I'm not convinced that the 180s are any less reliable than the ex GC HSTs. It needs to be remembered that HT requires quite intensive use of 3 of their 4 units on a daily basis, whereas if they were replacing the ex GC HSTs at EMT only 2 units would be required per day and even then those units would be lightly used.

Not even 2 units, the 1734 HST from St Pancras to Nottingham, could then form the 1945 from Nottingham to St Pancras.

So only 1 unit required for diagram DY022
Leaving 3 180s available for other duties, plus the May 2020 TT change should release 222s, plus 3 more 222s released when Corby goes electric.

EMT changed the 43/4 diagrams, so DY021 is:

1945 NOT - STP
2200 STP - NOT

DY022 is:

0731 DBY - STP
1005 STP - NOT
ECS NOT - SHF
1359 SHF - STP
1650 STP - COR
1837 COR - STP
2030 STP - DBY

 

[grumpyoldman01]

But how ? What would GC run. And if the answer's HST's, how come they're alright for Grant Central but not EMT ?

Please look at my earlier question.

Having been retired from the rail industry for many years, I don't hear rumours - I only see them when posted on forums such as this.

I asked if there were any regarding the future of Grand Central as DB have declared that they wish to rid themselves of Arriva, and have a record of closing down open access operations (Wrexham & Shropshire); I noted that this would release the balance of the 180 fleet, and asked if the total 14 sets would be sufficient to cover all of the existing EMT HST diagrams. This is the context in which the answer was made, and so - if Grand Central didn't exist - it wouldn't need any trains to replace its 180s. However, as it seems no such rumours do exist, it's reasonable to assume that Grand Central is safe (at least for the immediate future), and therefore their fleet of class 180s won't become available.

Unless, of course, someone has heard that Grand Central are going to replace their 180s with something else; if it was 1st April, I'd suggest class 93s and Mk IVs!

Hope this clarifies the situation for you.

 

[yorksrob]

Please look at my earlier question.

Having been retired from the rail industry for many years, I don't hear rumours - I only see them when posted on forums such as this.

I asked if there were any regarding the future of Grand Central as DB have declared that they wish to rid themselves of Arriva, and have a record of closing down open access operations (Wrexham & Shropshire); I noted that this would release the balance of the 180 fleet, and asked if the total 14 sets would be sufficient to cover all of the existing EMT HST diagrams. This is the context in which the answer was made, and so - if Grand Central didn't exist - it wouldn't need any trains to replace its 180s. However, as it seems no such rumours do exist, it's reasonable to assume that Grand Central is safe (at least for the immediate future), and therefore their fleet of class 180s won't become available.

Unless, of course, someone has heard that Grand Central are going to replace their 180s with something else; if it was 1st April, I'd suggest class 93s and Mk IVs!

Hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Mk 4's might not be so far fetched, although goodness knows what would haul them !

Either way GC trains are very well used these days, and I couldn't imagine them being dropped altogether.

 

[hwl]

If Stagecoach challenge legally DfT would be 'brave' (if the Court doesn't specifically order a freeze on placing the contract which it almost certainly would) in progressing as by doing so they would be increasing the damages payable significantly. That would attract the attention of yet another Parliamentary Ctte, probably the most powerful of the lot, namely the Public Accounts Ctte. Depts really do not want to get on the wrong side of them...

PAC doing a report on outsourcing rail pensions risk to franchisees would be entertaining! (Unless you are DfT...)
On Value for Money keeping it in DfT makes sense, however DfT would love to rid them selves of the responsibility and annual spending requirements to get themselves some treasury brownie points.

 

[hwl]

No it's not certain at all! SE needed all sorts of mods to their 466s to get an exemption.
It would be politically unacceptable for the DfT to grant an exemption, without doing something about it, like partially replacing the HSTs with compliant stock, such as off lease 180s, and cascaded 222s

SE or rather Angel are getting all the sensible easy stuff done to the 466s (e.g. door button and sounder replacement), just not removing lots of seats to add a wheelchair space and a disabled toilet to a 2 car metro unit that is 90% diagrammed in 10 car units with 465 that do have wheelchair spaces and disabled toilets.

 

[Wolfie]

SE or rather Angel are getting all the sensible easy stuff done to the 466s (e.g. door button and sounder replacement), just not removing lots of seats to add a wheelchair space and a disabled toilet to a 2 car metro unit that is 90% diagrammed in 10 car units with 465 that do have wheelchair spaces and disabled toilets.

While things really should have been properly sorted by the deadline that sounds like a sensible compromise.

 

[hwl]

While things really should have been properly sorted by the deadline that sounds like a sensible compromise.

They are being properly sorted by the deadline (i.e. mods completed). As a comparison there is one only have 1 universal toilet in 12 car 700s so 3 in a 10car 465x2 +466 starts to eat into space on cramped commuter services.
Virtually identical thinking to the Scotrail West Highland 153 thinking.

 

[Wolfie]

They are being properly sorted by the deadline (i.e. mods completed). As a comparison there is one only have 1 universal toilet in 12 car 700s so 3 in a 10car 465x2 +466 starts to eat into space on cramped commuter services.
Virtually identical thinking to the Scotrail West Highland 153 thinking.

Except the one on a 700 can be accessed from anywhere on the train...

 

[hwl]

Except the one on a 700 can be accessed from anywhere on the train...

It is located near both wheelchairs areas so no need to go though the whole train (the aisles aren't wide enough any way). The decisions are more about the level of overall provision.

 

[Corncob]

Not just those with mobility issues - the only way I've found I can get into Mediæval torture devices (also known as seats) on the EMT HST's is to stand on them (not exactly easy when you're as tall as I am) and then slide down into the seat. And if it's Airline style it's even worse as I can't get my feet anywhere near the floor as they get rammed into the back of the seat below. Annoying as you can see if the arm rests weren't fixed I could probably swivel into the seat (like I can on the cramped 158s) - once you finally get into them you end up with your shoulders being hemmed in for the entire journey.

I always book on the stoppers as they are usually the far comfier Meridians (even though the headroom is lacking in places).

I will always catch a HST over a Meridian as I find the seats so uncomfortable. So much so I've changed my working day to avoid them.

 

[Malcolmffc]

I will always catch a HST over a Meridian as I find the seats so uncomfortable. So much so I've changed my working day to avoid them.

Surely easier to buy a pillow?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely easier to buy a pillow?

A pillow doesn't make IC70 seating comfortable to, er, the larger gentleman, unless you also have an angle grinder hidden inside said pillow to cut the armrests off.

The actual seat is fine, if only they'd fitted lifting armrests instead.

Oh, er, sorry, the other way round? I find Meridian seats fine. They just need tarting up a bit as they have got rather scruffy.

 

[duffield]

@cactustwirly is correct here.

We are dealing with the realities of where the law is and where responsibilities lie.

For example, we are entering a world where you could make a current train "compliant" by removing the existing small toilet - this may inconvenience 99% of passengers but (more importantly) it doesn't discriminate against the 1% of passengers who wouldn't be able to use it. Similarly, to use a Jacob Rees Mogg style quote, no train is better than an inaccessible train (as far as the law sees it). If that means closing some lines or cancelling services because insufficient modern DMUs mean either running a Pacer or running no train then we'll end up running no train.

That's just how things are. Maybe, in an ideal world, we'd do things differently, maybe, in an ideal world, we'd have planned for the 1 January 2020 properly rather than desperately trying to upgrade everything at the last minute, but we are where we are.

A reliable eight coach train may be better for most people than an unreliable five coach train, but if the eight coach train discriminates against certain passengers whilst the five coach one is fully accessible then TOCs have to deal with that reality.

It's not just rail, it's the same in a lot of industries - it's better to provide something that doesn't discriminate than something that 99% of people may prefer (that discriminates against 1%). Our right to ride around on 1970s HSTs that have barely been refurbished in forty years and still retain period features like droplight windows doesn't come into it.

It's not about my opinion on what should happen, it's about the law.

But you are ignoring what the law actually says. All of it is qualified by a phrase something like "...unless the Transport Minister grants a derogation".

 

[ABB125]

Am I right in thinking that more details are due out today, if the standstill period hasn't been extended?

 

[whhistle]

I doubt the DfT will extend it.
They have no interest in doing so, surely?

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Am I right in thinking that more details are due out today, if the standstill period hasn't been extended?

Standstill period should end today, but nothing yet on DfT or Abellio websites, as at 09.45 on 24th