East Midlands Railway short formed services

[Wolfie]

EMR should reintroduce the stored class 153 stock until sufficient class 170s can be sourced. They obviously aren't PRM approved but surely so long as they always operate attached to PRM approved class 156 stock, then 2 or 4 car consists can instead operate as 3 or 5 car to alleviate overcrowding.
PRM utilise the 156, while able bodied sit in the 153. Better than standing or being left on the platform.
Surely a short term lease can be arranged?

You are assuming that DfT will grant a waiver.

It also assumes that EMR traincrew are still current on that rolling stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not as if all new timetables were involved

It was an all new timetable.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm puzzled by the bit which says 'Both EMR and Network Rail are carrying out reviews into why the May timetable uplift failed'

What has Network Rail got to do with it? I'm not aware of any of the problems being attributed to infrastructure failures, I thought the mess was down to trains, training, staffing difficulties and maintainance problems?

It's not as if all new timetables were involved, surely May was simply supposed to be a return to the old timetable with the odd extra journey here and there, certainly nothing which could have caused the meltdown we've seen.

Network Rail has overall responsibility for the timetable so they clearly have an interest in assessing what went wrong. The regional stuff looks like mainly a TOC problem, but they may be referring also to the changes on the London route, where there were some suggestions on here that some of the timings weren't quite right.

EMR should reintroduce the stored class 153 stock until sufficient class 170s can be sourced. They obviously aren't PRM approved but surely so long as they always operate attached to PRM approved class 156 stock, then 2 or 4 car consists can instead operate as 3 or 5 car to alleviate overcrowding.
PRM utilise the 156, while able bodied sit in the 153. Better than standing or being left on the platform.
Surely a short term lease can be arranged?

Is the problem really lack of stock? They've received a few 170s, more I think than the 153s they've lost. Service levels are generally below what they were before the timetable change, which suggests they are able to put fewer units into service. Reasons for this seem unclear, but may be to do with crew availability, difficulties in undertaking training or lack of maintenance staff. If this assessment is accurate then extra 153s wouldn't help much, especially if they could only lengthen services rather than running extra ones.

 

[yorksrob]

EMR should reintroduce the stored class 153 stock until sufficient class 170s can be sourced. They obviously aren't PRM approved but surely so long as they always operate attached to PRM approved class 156 stock, then 2 or 4 car consists can instead operate as 3 or 5 car to alleviate overcrowding.
PRM utilise the 156, while able bodied sit in the 153. Better than standing or being left on the platform.
Surely a short term lease can be arranged?

Ah, but you see, that would be a sensible contingency plan, rather than box ticking to satisfy lobby groups, so it won't happen.

 

[DDB]

I'm puzzled by the bit which says 'Both EMR and Network Rail are carrying out reviews into why the May timetable uplift failed'

What has Network Rail got to do with it? I'm not aware of any of the problems being attributed to infrastructure failures, I thought the mess was down to trains, training, staffing difficulties and maintainance problems?

It's not as if all new timetables were involved, surely May was simply supposed to be a return to the old timetable with the odd extra journey here and there, certainly nothing which could have caused the meltdown we've seen.

All new timetables were introduced (delayed from December), mostly on the London routes but there were significant changes on the regional routes as well. Matlock-Newark cut back to Nottingham whole Crewe-Derby was extended through to Nottingham to Newark.

We were told it fell apart due to lack of staff trained in the right route/traction combinations. I see no reason for short forms given they are now running considerably fewer services that were planned.

 

[XAM2175]

... rather than box ticking to satisfy lobby groups ...

How about you try to make your point without this bit?

 

[yorksrob]

How about you try to make your point without this bit?

Why ? The railway being strong armed into withdrawing rolling stock when it's replacements aren't ready, is at the heart of the problem.

 

[LowLevel]

All new timetables were introduced (delayed from December), mostly on the London routes but there were significant changes on the regional routes as well. Matlock-Newark cut back to Nottingham whole Crewe-Derby was extended through to Nottingham to Newark.

We were told it fell apart due to lack of staff trained in the right route/traction combinations. I see no reason for short forms given they are now running considerably fewer services that were planned.

The problem is until 2020 every kind of train could run with the others. Now the flexibility has gone. 170s can't work with anything. 156/9s can only work with themselves. It's nearly impossible to plan maintenance and exams around the level needed for Skegness and Liverpool multiple working especially with trains regularly breaking down in the middle of the day.

The 3 car 170s also take up more depot space and anything is less flexible for stabling than 153s which can be split down to 1 car and dumped wherever.

There are 2 156s stored at Barrow Hill because there's no room to maintain them at the depots. 2 more have gone to Wolverton, whether to be "Northernised" or not no one is quite sure. There's 6 153s in varying states of repair cluttering the place up for Barton despite competency falling on the class in general.

 

[XAM2175]

Why ? The railway being strong armed into withdrawing rolling stock when it's replacements aren't ready, is at the heart of the problem.

This is more fair. I object to the PRM upgrade process being characterised as "box-ticking" or otherwise not worthwhile , but agree that managing the withdrawal of non-compliant stock could have been managed more pragmatically.

 

[bunnahabhain]

There were a ridiculous number of people travelling and the majority seemed to be heading to the Parklife festival, returning on Monday was also an issue with many trains throughout the day reporting as full and standing departing Manchester.

 

[Djgr]

There were a ridiculous number of people travelling and the majority seemed to be heading to the Parklife festival, returning on Monday was also an issue with many trains throughout the day reporting as full and standing departing Manchester.

As ever, everything would be fine on the railways if it wasn't for these pesky passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

This is more fair. I object to the PRM upgrade process being characterised as "box-ticking" or otherwise not worthwhile , but agree that managing the withdrawal of non-compliant stock could have been managed more pragmatically.

Well, we can agree on that.

We seem to have a case of perfection being the enemy of good.

 

[londonmidland]

Talking of train faults, 158858 left Sheffield around 60 late due to an issue with the brakes (booked 09:43 departure) Terminating at Piccadilly vice Lime Street. Not sure how this will affect its return journey so something to keep an eye on.

 

[Bikeman78]

Yes, They should definitely be directing people to the TPE services between Sheffield and Manchester. Particularly as these are now six carriages.

It sounds as though it's getting to the stage where questions ought to be asked in the House about EMR. A few less 135's surely can't explain the levels of short forming being reported.

Where have all the 158s gone? Not so long ago almost all trains were four car 158s between Liverpool and Nottingham with the occasional 156 appearing. Now two cars are routine including solo 156s. I had a solo 156 out of Liverpool back in June. Reasonably full until Manchester where it filled to overflowing. I got off at Stockport (I was planning to anyway).

The problem is until 2020 every kind of train could run with the others. Now the flexibility has gone. 170s can't work with anything.

What am I missing? Welsh 170s can run with 150/153/158. Scottish 170s routinely work with 158s. WMT 170s work with 153s.

 

[yorksrob]

Where have all the 158s gone? Not so long ago almost all trains were four car 158s between Liverpool and Nottingham with the occasional 156 appearing. Now two cars are routine including solo 156s. I had a solo 156 out of Liverpool back in June. Reasonably full until Manchester where it filled to overflowing. I got off at Stockport (I was planning to anyway).


What am I missing? Welsh 170s can run with 150/153/158. Scottish 170s routinely work with 158s. WMT 170s work with 153s.

Good question.

Not so long ago you used to be guaranteed at least one 158 on the Sheffield-Manchester line, plus usually another or something else.

 

[Wolfie]

Why ? The railway being strong armed into withdrawing rolling stock when it's replacements aren't ready, is at the heart of the problem.

The railway was given literally a decade or more to meet a legal requirement and sat on its collective butts until way too late. Now it's apologists think that it should just be given a free pass. How about big fines instead? That will act as one heck of an incentive for it never to happen again.

 

[XAM2175]

What am I missing? Welsh 170s can run with 150/153/158. Scottish 170s routinely work with 158s. WMT 170s work with 153s.

It's incompatibility between the passenger information systems (and thus also the passenger alarms), is it not? All the other examples have compatible systems, either because they were kitted out at the same time or because they've been subsequently modified.

 

[Watershed]

The railway was given literally a decade or more to meet a legal requirement and sat on its collective butts until way too late. Now it's apologists think that it should just be given a free pass. How about big fines instead? That will act as one heck of an incentive for it never to happen again.

The blame for this can be squarely aimed at the DfT, with their utterly inadequate planning for a requirement that ... checks notes ... the DfT decided to introduce. The 7 Ps come to mind !

The TOCs are just their agents when it comes to rolling stock and it would be utterly pointless to try and make them individually liable.

 

[Bikeman78]

It's incompatibility between the passenger information systems (and thus also the passenger alarms), is it not? All the other examples have compatible systems, either because they were kitted out at the same time or because they've been subsequently modified.

Well that's just silly. Either put the same system in all units or at least make them compatible. It's entirely predictable that various classes of Sprinter units will move from TOC to TOC. Presumably the TOCs taking on other units will know what type of passenger information system is installed and plan accordingly?

 

[43055]

Where have all the 158s gone? Not so long ago almost all trains were four car 158s between Liverpool and Nottingham with the occasional 156 appearing. Now two cars are routine including solo 156s. I had a solo 156 out of Liverpool back in June. Reasonably full until Manchester where it filled to overflowing. I got off at Stockport (I was planning to anyway).


What am I missing? Welsh 170s can run with 150/153/158. Scottish 170s routinely work with 158s. WMT 170s work with 153s.

156s and 158s seem to be running interchangeably now on most routes. The Crewe to Newark service normally has one sometimes two 158s.

 

[Bikeman78]

The railway was given literally a decade or more to meet a legal requirement and sat on its collective butts until way too late. Now it's apologists think that it should just be given a free pass. How about big fines instead? That will act as one heck of an incentive for it never to happen again.

I think we are the only country in Europe that has taken it this far. All other countries only apply the rules to new build trains.

Regarding UK franchises why would ATW or Stagecoach be interested in a deadline that applied a year after their franchise ended? I think the ATW franchise started before the deadline was set so the government would have had to stump up for any costs associated with modifying the units. This fiasco was predicted by people on this forum and plenty of others way back in 2015 and probably before that. How come the government did see it coming? BR era units all have an overhaul every 8-10 years. PRM mods should have been included in all overhauls post 2010.

 

[Wolfie]

I think we are the only country in Europe that has taken it this far. All other countries only apply the rules to new build trains.

Regarding UK franchises why would ATW or Stagecoach be interested in a deadline that applied a year after their franchise ended? I think the ATW franchise started before the deadline was set so the government would have had to stump up for any costs associated with modifying the units. This fiasco was predicted by people on this forum and plenty of others way back in 2015 and probably before that. How come the government did see it coming? BR era units all have an overhaul every 8-10 years. PRM mods should have been included in all overhauls post 2010.

Re your last two sentences. Absolutely.

 

[43096]

Re your last two sentences. Absolutely.

And DfT was told by the ROSCOs that the most effective way to do it was as scheduled overhaul work (C6) was due. DfT ignored this.

 

[londonmidland]

Cross Country are running an additional service tonight, running as 1T85 23:29 Nottingham to Leicester.

This is in reaction to the cancellation of EMR’s 23:20 2L88 Nottingham - Leicester.

 

[Skymonster]

According to online sources, EMR’s dispensation to operate 153s ends in ten days time on 26th September. EMR still has six 153s, although I believe only the two on the Cleethorpes - Barton job are regularly diagrammed. So if there is no further extension this will further limit options to strengthen services such as Skeggy, while operating the Cleethorpes-Barton service may be challenging given I understand the local crews have had no training on 156s yet and I suspect there are no units free either.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994558/emr-class-153-angel-trains-dispensation-letter.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994560/emr-class-153-porterbrook-leasing-dispensation-letter.pdf

 

[Killingworth]

According to online sources, EMR’s dispensation to operate 153s ends in ten days time on 26th September. EMR still has six 153s, although I believe only the two on the Cleethorpes - Barton job are regularly diagrammed. So if there is no further extension this will further limit options to strengthen services such as Skeggy, while operating the Cleethorpes-Barton service may be challenging given I understand the local crews have had no training on 156s yet and I suspect there are no units free either.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994558/emr-class-153-angel-trains-dispensation-letter.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994560/emr-class-153-porterbrook-leasing-dispensation-letter.pdf

Better get TPE back to lend them a 185 for that line! They were effectively operating it for Northern before.

 

[Watershed]

According to online sources, EMR’s dispensation to operate 153s ends in ten days time on 26th September. EMR still has six 153s, although I believe only the two on the Cleethorpes - Barton job are regularly diagrammed. So if there is no further extension this will further limit options to strengthen services such as Skeggy, while operating the Cleethorpes-Barton service may be challenging given I understand the local crews have had no training on 156s yet and I suspect there are no units free either.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994558/emr-class-153-angel-trains-dispensation-letter.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994560/emr-class-153-porterbrook-leasing-dispensation-letter.pdf

If the dispensation isn't extended, it will be buses or nothing. There is no way that 156s or 185s will be used on the 27th.

 

[_toommm_]

If the dispensation isn't extended, it will be buses or nothing. There is no way that 156s or 185s will be used on the 27th.

Wouldn’t surprise me if they were granted an emergency extension. I think some extensions in the recent past have only been issued in the nick of time.

 

[Skymonster]

Better get TPE back to lend them a 185 for that line! They were effectively operating it for Northern before.

Still TPE drivers and guards - or it was a week ago.

The letter clearly says EMR needs to report back on progress with replacement units and crew training every two weeks, so surely someone knows something only 10 days before the dispensation ends. If it reverts to bus on 27th September, it would be pretty disgraceful for EMR not letting people know by now.

 

[RHolmes]

Still TPE drivers and guards - or it was a week ago.

MOW is local door only with a 185, that won’t be happening with the Barton route anytime soon.