EMR Class 360's

[bramling]

my point is that before we start putting extra trains into the system, let’s free up the seats that have bags on them first.

I just don’t think this washes any more. People know the space can be provided, and going by car they will almost certainly have three empty seats around them. If rail wants to be an attractive alternative, it is going to have to find a way to give people space, now at all times of day.

 

[3973EXL]

STP 11/05 5Q80 1054 Cricklewood - Eastleigh Works 47739 360120
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K03542/2022-05-11/detailed

STP 11/05 5Q81 1558 Eastleigh Works - Cricklewood
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K04966/2022-05-11/detailed

 

[Bald Rick]

I just don’t think this washes any more. People know the space can be provided, and going by car they will almost certainly have three empty seats around them. If rail wants to be an attractive alternative, it is going to have to find a way to give people space, now at all times of day.

but that just isn’t the case. Almost every train I’ve been on for the last two weeks has been full and standing. It seems that isn’t putting them off.

 

[bramling]

but that just isn’t the case. Almost every train I’ve been on for the last two weeks has been full and standing. It seems that isn’t putting them off.

But something is clearly putting some people off if we’re still (as is the case on something like Great Northern) running reduced timetables and/or reduced train lengths on the basis of reduced demand.

There’s people who have either found preferable ways to travel, or who currently have the option to work at home. To get both these groups back the industry (in my view) will need to move away from rail travel being something of a distress purchase. There’s numerous people in my road who this applies to, including one right here typing this now! (*)

(* I should add that in my case space isn’t a massive issue in practice as I rarely travel at peak times, price isn’t a factor for me either, but quality is. One thing which might assist getting me back is a better all-round weekend travel experience, but I’m sufficiently long in the tooth to know that’s probably never going to happen in my lifetime on this route!)

 

[43066]

But something is clearly putting some people off if we’re still (as is the case on something like Great Northern) running reduced timetables and/or reduced train lengths on the basis of reduced demand.

There’s people who have either found preferable ways to travel, or who currently have the option to work at home. To get both these groups back the industry (in my view) will need to move away from rail travel being something of a distress purchase. There’s numerous people in my road who this applies to, including one right here typing this now!

There does still seem to be a residual unwillingness to sit next to other people post covid, matched by an increased sense of narcissism and self entitlement that prompts people to put bags on seats to prevent others sitting near them. One solution might be increased announcements reminding people to make use of all available seats, and that seats are for bottoms not bags! No doubt the problem will fade as the Covid behaviour patterns we have all been forced to adopt over the past couple of years continue to recede.

 

[bramling]

There does still seem to be a residual unwillingness to sit next to other people post covid, matched by an increased sense of narcissism and self entitlement that prompts people to put bags on seats to prevent others sitting near them. One solution might be increased announcements reminding people to make use of all available seats, and that seats are for bottoms not bags! No doubt the problem will fade as the Covid behaviour patterns we have all been forced to adopt over the past couple of years continue to recede.

Some of us are simply antisocial and don’t particularly like sitting next to people at the best of times! Though in fairness, when one gets up at 0300 or finishes in the small hours then this isn’t by any means an unrealistic expectation.

But, being serious, I feel that this is something the industry is going to have to grips with. As we know, most of the population already *don’t* use rail, or use it rarely, and I’m sure personal space is one factor of many in this.

As an aside, there’s rather more effective ways of discouraging people to occupy a seat than placing a bag there!

 

[Bald Rick]

But something is clearly putting some people off if we’re still (as is the case on something like Great Northern) running reduced timetables and/or reduced train lengths on the basis of reduced demand.

There’s people who have either found preferable ways to travel, or who currently have the option to work at home. To get both these groups back the industry (in my view) will need to move away from rail travel being something of a distress purchase. There’s numerous people in my road who this applies to, including one right here typing this now! (*)

(* I should add that in my case space isn’t a massive issue in practice as I rarely travel at peak times, price isn’t a factor for me either, but quality is. One thing which might assist getting me back is a better all-round weekend travel experience, but I’m sufficiently long in the tooth to know that’s probably never going to happen in my lifetime on this route!)

Accepting that this is one factor, albeit in my view a long way behind the convenience and cost saving of working from home.... however the railway simply doesn’t pay if it has peak trains running around half empty. As the late great Mr Fiennes said, quite publicly “There is only one way to make this railway pay, and that is to make the passengers stand”.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Not actually sure what was or was not accepted.

Class 360 Method of Working, East Midlands Railway

www.rmt.org.uk

Ballot reslut

I find it difficult to work what the problem with 12 cars is that doesn't apply to 8 cars - I can see that a passenger emergency in a non-gangwatyed set that doesn't have a crew member in may be an issue, but why for 3 sets and not 2? A predecessor of fellow Abellio operator W.M.R. ran 12 car (non ganbgwayed) trains.

I did ask a retired Transport Wales Guards' Inspector I know what happened in the case of an emergency on non-gangwayed double sets. and he explained how it was solved - routinely.

 

[baz962]

I find it difficult to work what the problem with 12 cars is that doesn't apply to 8 cars - I can see that a passenger emergency in a non-gangwatyed set that doesn't have a crew member in may be an issue, but why for 3 sets and not 2? A predecessor of fellow Abellio operator W.M.R. ran 12 car (non ganbgwayed) trains.

I did ask a retired Transport Wales Guards' Inspector I know what happened in the case of an emergency on non-gangwayed double sets. and he explained how it was solved - routinely.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. The difference between the two is that on an eight car you have the driver in one set and TM in the other. On a twelve car the union wanted a second TM for the third set , so a safety critical staff member in each. Even if you get say a passcomm you need to get a line block for the TM or driver to get out and get in the set with no TM on.

 

[bramling]

Accepting that this is one factor, albeit in my view a long way behind the convenience and cost saving of working from home.... however the railway simply doesn’t pay if it has peak trains running around half empty. As the late great Mr Fiennes said, quite publicly “There is only one way to make this railway pay, and that is to make the passengers stand”.

I don't disagree with the premise of that, just that I think the railway is going to have to work on trying to soften that economics. Not having to have two TMs on a 12-car is a start!

I realise this isn't entirely a railway industry issue, though with the railway "industry" now being very much DFT-led this position weakens. We have a strange situation in this country where the powers that be claim to want to discourage car use, yet at the same time seem to want rail travel to be as unpleasant as possible. Funny old country, this one.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. The difference between the two is that on an eight car you have the driver in one set and TM in the other. On a twelve car the union wanted a second TM for the third set , so a safety critical staff member in each. Even if you get say a passcomm you need to get a line block for the TM or driver to get out and get in the set with no TM on.

Thanks, but several things.

On 8 cars, that means the T.M. has to always be in the rear set. I'm not sure, from observation, that that is always the case, but how would the T.M. carry out revenue protection duties in the front set? Also, if the driver is responsible for the front set are there not rules preventing him/her leaving the controls on a running line?

As I said, the 12 car 321s ran on the Northampton line services with driver and guard only.

The T.W. Guards' Inspector that I mentioned earlier said that it was the guard's responsibility to respond to passenger emergency in all coaches, and if this was in the set he/she wasn't in, then he/she transferred via the adjoining cabs. Obviously with line block where no cess side access available, but he implied that via the cess was safe.

The link to the Union agreement unfortunately doesn't seem to include what the point of issue was or its resolution.

 

[A0wen]

I realise this isn't entirely a railway industry issue, though with the railway "industry" now being very much DFT-led this position weakens. We have a strange situation in this country where the powers that be claim to want to discourage car use, yet at the same time seem to want rail travel to be as unpleasant as possible. Funny old country, this one.

That's got to take the prize for "non sequitur of the day".

 

[bramling]

That's got to take the prize for "non sequitur of the day".

So why doesn't it follow? If, allegedly, we desire to get people out of their cars, this is hardly going to be achieved if the outcome is they have to stand on a rail journey, which we know most people dislike doing. It's one thing if this genuinely can't be avoided if the rail infrastructure is running at full capacity, quite another if it (as is now the case) isn't. Hence we come back to what society is prepared to pay for.

 

[baz962]

Thanks, but several things.

On 8 cars, that means the T.M. has to always be in the rear set. I'm not sure, from observation, that that is always the case, but how would the T.M. carry out revenue protection duties in the front set? Also, if the driver is responsible for the front set are there not rules preventing him/her leaving the controls on a running line?

As I said, the 12 car 321s ran on the Northampton line services with driver and guard only.

The T.W. Guards' Inspector that I mentioned earlier said that it was the guard's responsibility to respond to passenger emergency in all coaches, and if this was in the set he/she wasn't in, then he/she transferred via the adjoining cabs. Obviously with line block where no cess side access available, but he implied that via the cess was safe.

The link to the Union agreement unfortunately doesn't seem to include what the point of issue was or its resolution.

Well I am on the fence with it. If the driver needs to deal with the fault and the signaller is aware , then you can leave the cab to do so. Obviously revenue isn't done by the TM in the front set , but there have been loads of EMR revenue teams out recently.

 

[bramling]

Well I am on the fence with it. If the driver needs to deal with the fault and the signaller is aware , then you can leave the cab to do so. Obviously revenue isn't done by the TM in the front set , but there have been loads of EMR revenue teams out recently.

Non-gangwayed multiple units have operated for many years on numerous routes without staff in a unit. Whilst it's not *ideal*, there's been enough years of this operation to tell us that it simply isn't a big issue. It simply isn't worth the cost of paying for an extra member of staff, especially in the current situation of having to tighten belts.

In any case, the whole thing over the 360s seems to be more of a proxy for having two TMs when the 222s are replaced. The Corby EMU operation could just as easily be DOO, plenty of comparable routes operate thus.

 

[A0wen]

So why doesn't it follow? If, allegedly, we desire to get people out of their cars, this is hardly going to be achieved if the outcome is they have to stand on a rail journey, which we know most people dislike doing. It's one thing if this genuinely can't be avoided if the rail infrastructure is running at full capacity, quite another if it (as is now the case) isn't. Hence we come back to what society is prepared to pay for.

It doesn't follow because people choose how to travel based on many criteria - keeping this on topic of EMR's 360s to give an example the only thing these trains are directly competing with car use on are journeys between Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and London - or a part of.

So if you live in Kettering and want to go to Northampton or Milton Keynes, the train can be 2+1 with reclining airline seats, fully aircon'd and have steward at seat service, but nobody will swap because the journey time will be absurd.

Flip side - people will choose the train from Corby, Kettering or Wellingborough to London over the car, almost regardless of the rolling stock, because the alternative is driving which will take twice as long and have the inconvenience of having to find somewhere to park in London.

 

[baz962]

Non-gangwayed multiple units have operated for many years on numerous routes without staff in a unit. Whilst it's not *ideal*, there's been enough years of this operation to tell us that it simply isn't a big issue. It simply isn't worth the cost of paying for an extra member of staff, especially in the current situation of having to tighten belts.

In any case, the whole thing over the 360s seems to be more of a proxy for having two TMs when the 222s are replaced. The Corby EMU operation could just as easily be DOO, plenty of comparable routes operate thus.

Like I said I'm on the fence. No big deal either way. I do wonder how much it costs in delays though if you need a line block. I have no idea of other routes , but on the MML between st pancras and Kettering you only have a cess on the down fast and the up slow. On the up fast you have down fast on the right and down slow on the left. On the down slow you have up fast on the right and up slow on the left and the ten foot is not much bigger than the four foot in most places.

 

[Hairy Bear]

In any case, the whole thing over the 360s seems to be more of a proxy for having two TMs when the 222s are replaced. The Corby EMU operation could just as easily be DOO, plenty of comparable routes operate thus.

Except that would require a large investment of platform cameras & monitors or fitting of cameras and monitors in the 360's.
Who wants to pay for that then ?

 

[43066]

Some of us are simply antisocial and don’t particularly like sitting next to people at the best of times! Though in fairness, when one gets up at 0300 or finishes in the small hours then this isn’t by any means an unrealistic expectation.

But, being serious, I feel that this is something the industry is going to have to grips with. As we know, most of the population already *don’t* use rail, or use it rarely, and I’m sure personal space is one factor of many in this.

As an aside, there’s rather more effective ways of discouraging people to occupy a seat than placing a bag there!

I’m afraid I’m also one of those who hates others sitting next to them, and well versed in ways to prevent it, rest assured .

That said, I think people simply need to get used to trains being busy again in the 2019 sense, rather than the “I haven’t got empty seats either side or me” pandemic sense. I’m not sure there’s any way the railway can really function otherwise, certainly at busy times, which increasingly means all day at weekends.

In any case, the whole thing over the 360s seems to be more of a proxy for having two TMs when the 222s are replaced.

That’s a very big part of it, yes.

 

[MML]

I'd love to see some of the EMR apologists on the 1847 from St Pancras to Corby this evening. A 4-car unit, every seat occupied and standing down the aisles.

No doubt they would be telling us there are more seats on a 360 than a class 222.
Probably telling customers that they'll be able to squeeze down the aisle after people alight at Luton.

Not sure those paying £1000s for a season ticket would agree nor that COVID is or was a valid excuse for not delivering a 12-car refurbished electric in the peak. EMR seem more concerned about promoting a toy mascot than delivering for customers needs. They should be running a Disney theme park.

 

[43066]

No doubt they would be telling us there are more seats on a 360 than a class 222.

Well, there are…

 

[Merle Haggard]

Except that would require a large investment of platform cameras & monitors or fitting of cameras and monitors in the 360's.
Who wants to pay for that then ?

I don't know for sure but don't St. Pancras, Luton Airport, Luton and Bedford already have platform cameras/monitors? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that T.L. was D.O.O..

At Wellingborough, apparently money was no object - 3 platforms extended to 12 car (one from about 4 car!) and a fourth built, canopies refurbished, goods shed converted to platform passage, up slow re-instated, footbridge extended with extra lifts. A few cameras and monitors could have been lost in the rounding/budget contingency1

The saving would be in T.M.s salaries, which is a cost every year - the D.O.O. stuff is once only. Barriers are currently being fitted at Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby so there's no revenue protection to lose, just a straight saving against the D.O.O. costs.

 

[bramling]

I don't know for sure but don't St. Pancras, Luton Airport, Luton and Bedford already have platform cameras/monitors? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that T.L. was D.O.O..

At Wellingborough, apparently money was no object - 3 platforms extended to 12 car (one from about 4 car!) and a fourth built, canopies refurbished, goods shed converted to platform passage, up slow re-instated, footbridge extended with extra lifts. A few cameras and monitors could have been lost in the rounding/budget contingency1

The saving would be in T.M.s salaries, which is a cost every year - the D.O.O. stuff is once only. Barriers are currently being fitted at Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby so there's no revenue protection to lose, just a straight saving against the D.O.O. costs.

TL certainly had DOO equipment in 319 days, but the 700s are all bodyside cameras.

It isn’t insurmountable to implement something though, there’s several ways of doing it.

 

[Merle Haggard]

TL certainly had DOO equipment in 319 days, but the 700s are all bodyside cameras.

It isn’t insurmountable to implement something though, there’s several ways of doing it.

Forgive my ignorance, but is it bodyside cameras and platform monitors, or just bodyside cameras with the 700s?

 

[bramling]

Forgive my ignorance, but is it bodyside cameras and platform monitors, or just bodyside cameras with the 700s?

I’ve no idea if any monitors still survive on the midland TL side (some still do on GN), however it is just bodyside cameras now. The central driving position on a 700 must make monitors impracticable.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I’ve no idea if any monitors still survive on the midland TL side (some still do on GN), however it is just bodyside cameras now. The central driving position on a 700 must make monitors impracticable.

Thanks.

Perhaps 700s to Corby is the answer (though there might be complaints about losing the wonderful 360s )

 

[bramling]

Thanks.

Perhaps 700s to Corby is the answer (though there might be complaints about losing the wonderful 360s )

Would have been possible by taking 8x 700 off GN and backfilling with 365s!

 

[Mikw]

I'd love to see some of the EMR apologists on the 1847 from St Pancras to Corby this evening. A 4-car unit, every seat occupied and standing down the aisles.

No doubt they would be telling us there are more seats on a 360 than a class 222.
Probably telling customers that they'll be able to squeeze down the aisle after people alight at Luton.

Not sure those paying £1000s for a season ticket would agree nor that COVID is or was a valid excuse for not delivering a 12-car refurbished electric in the peak. EMR seem more concerned about promoting a toy mascot than delivering for customers needs. They should be running a Disney theme park.

I was on that train! I saw on the EMR website it was a 4 coach. So got to St Pancs really early and got onto the platform just as the previous 360 was pulling out.

Stood on the empty platform guessing approximately where the front coach would be, and got onto it as soon as it arrived to guarentee a seat.

I shared a three seat with a bloke and there were two ladies facing us. Was a bit tight and you could hear every word of one of the ladies phone calls. Enough to know she was a TV or Radio presenter who was working on a podcast. To be fair the front coach wasn't too overloaded. Small groups of men standing in the doors, all others seated. Was pretty empty by the time we got to Bedford. I would imagine the other three coaches were rammed though.

Most of the seats in the front coach were well utilised until Bedford - i was thinking that goodness there were as many seats as there are in the "old" configuration.

 

[507020]

Thanks.

Perhaps 700s to Corby is the answer (though there might be complaints about losing the wonderful 360s )

That would at least eliminate 4 car formations

 

[3973EXL]

STP 11/05 5Q80 1054 Cricklewood - Eastleigh Works 47739 360120
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K03542/2022-05-11/detailed

STP 11/05 5Q81 1558 Eastleigh Works - Cricklewood
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K04966/2022-05-11/detailed