New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[krus_aragon]

Class 222s aren't that old, where do you all think they will go? Cross Country? (Dunno if already discusses, I'm new)

That's my belief, and a few others' too.

(I think the DfT deferred the CrossCountry franchise specifically so that bidders could include the 222s in their plans.)

 

[NewSt]

I've read in this thread that people don't think 33 units will be enough. Don't want to bring back an old argument but surely they should be future proofing by providing more units.

I couldn't agree more, I think that they definitely need more units than that.

Class 222s aren't that old, where do you all think they will go? Cross Country? (Dunno if already discusses, I'm new)

I'd like CrossCountry to get them, as someone who has travelled on their services quite a lot, I know that they lack a lot of capacity and this could help improve it. I am unaware of final plans though.

 

[Roast Veg]

XC is the most likely contender from sheer process of elimination - no franchise has need of that many 125mph capable diesel units right now. Speculatively I wouldn't expect the unit lengths to change, with units just doubling up more often.

 

[class 9]

No! HSTs are non compliant and yet we keep them after the deadline. Why does the ECML and GWML get new compliant trains? Yes they are busier but the Midlands is a developing region and shouldn't be shoved down the list.
Mini rant over.

The MML should have had brand new electric trains to replace HSTs but then full electrification of the MML was scrapped and we are where we are today.

 

[Prestige15]

I wonder if they would have a buffet and either a full kitchen or a smaller one like TPE 802's

 

[Laketop]

I wonder if they would have a buffet and either a full kitchen or a smaller one like TPE 802's

My guess would be similar to a 5-car 222, just like LNERs 5-car's new train counterpart - with a kitchen in first class and a cafe bar near the centre.

 

[AM9]

Which is of course what most people doing that journey already do now - it’s usually quicker too.

Not sure about that. Yesterday I did SAC - SHF changing at Luton Airport Parkway and Leicester. Starting on the 08:02 northbound TL I ended up on the ex_STP 08:31 arriving at Sheffield at 10:42. To catch an earlier STP EM departure (08:02) would need a STP 07:30 departure. As you say, there's also the cost: Via STP, £238, direct £251 ? (split = £72.90). Same returning, the journey into London on the Sheffields which go fast from Leicester, and TL out to SAC, mostly takes longer than stepping down onto a slow Nottingham and TL at LU Parkway.

 

[samuelmorris]

I can't get the £251 fare to come up, highest I've seen either route is £238.50 but damn I didn't realise we were almost up to £2 a mile for standard class returns these days. Yikes.

 

[Jozhua]

So the Diesel intercity fleet will be reducing in size, but the electric trains could potentially make up for it...

The IC fleet is approx 248 carriages, and the new IC fleet including the Corby electrics will be 269. However, considering the corby service will be doubling in frequency, there probably won't be any increase in capacity on the Leicester/Notts/Derby/Sheffield parts of the route. The 222's are made of 24 meter end cars and 23 meter intermediate cars. So perhaps the AT300's with a more dense configuration and 24m carriages all the way down the train will bring more capacity. It just really doesn't feel like a measurable improvement except for more modern trains. Although, I'm sure the unreliability of the 180's will more than offset this!

 

[samuelmorris]

So the Diesel intercity fleet will be reducing in size, but the electric trains could potentially make up for it...

The IC fleet is approx 248 carriages, and the new IC fleet including the Corby electrics will be 269. However, considering the corby service will be doubling in frequency, there probably won't be any increase in capacity on the Leicester/Notts/Derby/Sheffield parts of the route. The 222's are made of 24 meter end cars and 23 meter intermediate cars. So perhaps the AT300's with a more dense configuration and 24m carriages all the way down the train will bring more capacity. It just really doesn't feel like a measurable improvement except for more modern trains. Although, I'm sure the unreliability of the 180's will more than offset this!

I think that mentality would only work if the 360s worked anything other than Corby services, which as far as I'm aware they won't. The 360s comprise a substantial uplift in the amount of stock allocated to that route, so if you consider the rest of the services from St Pancras, the reduction in fleet size compared to now is even more substantial.

I've seen a few new fleet proposals that order an amount of stock too similar to what is there now not allowing for much expansion, and I've seen proposals that add expansion but don't consider the reduced flexibility of running larger single fixed-formation units and thus still create a small shortfall. Nonetheless I don't think I've ever seen a considerable objective reduction in fleet size before. That seems to be new to this franchise.

 

[Jozhua]

I think that mentality would only work if the 360s worked anything other than Corby services, which as far as I'm aware they won't. The 360s comprise a substantial uplift in the amount of stock allocated to that route, so if you consider the rest of the services from St Pancras, the reduction in fleet size compared to now is even more substantial.

I've seen a few new fleet proposals that order an amount of stock too similar to what is there now not allowing for much expansion, and I've seen proposals that add expansion but don't consider the reduced flexibility of running larger single fixed-formation units and thus still create a small shortfall. Nonetheless I don't think I've ever seen a considerable objective reduction in fleet size before. That seems to be new to this franchise.

Maybe the order was bigger, but I wouldn't be suprised if Grayling cancelled half of it...

It's quite clear this bid wasn't that great, but when you want to push some questionable pension liabilities onto a TOC that will likely only be operating for a decade or so, you take what you can get...

Any chance more 180's will become available by 2021 to top up the fleet? Could see perhaps one more 180 on the Calder Valley get cascaded from Northern...if it manages to make it across the Pennines without breaking down. Grand Central also looks to be getting new 225's, is this to replace the 180's or entirely for Blackpool North to Euston?

 

[samuelmorris]

Maybe the order was bigger, but I wouldn't be suprised if Grayling cancelled half of it...

It's quite clear this bid wasn't that great, but when you want to push some questionable pension liabilities onto a TOC that will likely only be operating for a decade or so, you take what you can get...

Any chance more 180's will become available by 2021 to top up the fleet? Could see perhaps one more 180 on the Calder Valley get cascaded from Northern...if it manages to make it across the Pennines without breaking down. Grand Central also looks to be getting new 225's, is this to replace the 180's or entirely for Blackpool North to Euston?

The Mk4s are for Euston to Blackpool.

I wasn't aware Northern were currently using any 180s?

 

[tbtc]

So the Diesel intercity fleet will be reducing in size, but the electric trains could potentially make up for it...

The IC fleet is approx 248 carriages, and the new IC fleet including the Corby electrics will be 269. However, considering the corby service will be doubling in frequency, there probably won't be any increase in capacity on the Leicester/Notts/Derby/Sheffield parts of the route. The 222's are made of 24 meter end cars and 23 meter intermediate cars. So perhaps the AT300's with a more dense configuration and 24m carriages all the way down the train will bring more capacity. It just really doesn't feel like a measurable improvement except for more modern trains. Although, I'm sure the unreliability of the 180's will more than offset this!

Removing pretty much all of the "south of Market Harborough" passengers ought to free up a bit of capacity on the Nottingham services (by putting the shorter distance passengers onto long modern EMUs)...

...the simplicity of one Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) fleet will avoid the long dwells at St Pancras (where a significant number of services wait to become the equivalent northbound service, unlike Euston where a southbound Glasgow can become a northbound Manchester or a southbound Birmingham can become a northbound Liverpool... GNER/ NXEC/ EC/ VTEC/LNER have similarly been interworking "Yorkshire" and "Scottish" services for some time)...

...eighteen carriages of the LDHS fleet are the little used GC sets, which were only introduced to accommodate the temporary effect of Thameslink chances; these trains aren't used on much...

...then there's the speeded up timetables which may save a unit or two at the northern end due to improved arrivals (and similar interworking)...

...it's not a huge improvement but it is some improvement, and it's ordering stock equivalent to that which has been rolling off the conveyor belt for some time, so it's not like the 222s (where there was no scope for follow-on orders).

Look at it another way - say the EMR service becomes Sheffield - London - Nottingham every half hour (i.e. interworked). So just over two hours for Sheffield - London and just over an hour and a half from London to Nottingham. Call it nine hours for a round trip (i.e. that's allowing plenty of run-around time at all termini, and certainly not dependent upon a "Sheffield in two hours" or "Nottingham in ninety" break-neck approach).

A nine hourly cycle would (obviously) require nine trains to provide an hourly service. So eighteen trains to run a half hourly Sheffield - London - Nottingham service. You could potentially shave it down to an eight hour cycle, which would require only sixteen diagrams, but I'm trying to be realistic here, so let's assume eighteen are needed.

Allowing for some maintenance/ slack/ hot-spares etc, that means that roughly half the diagrams could be run by doubled up trains (say nine diagrams run by single units and nine used by double units... equals twenty seven...equals half a dozen "spare" trains in a fleet of thirty three).

I'm not saying that there'll be any inter-working, I'm just using that as a simpler way of illustrating the total number of diagrams that might be required for a half hourly Sheffield service and a half hourly Nottingham service. BUT, if the two did interwork then it's "useful" that the "nine hour" cycle of running London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield - London during the off-peak would mean that a train running a southbound service in the morning rush hour would be the same train running a northbound service in the evening peak - i.e. you could have a ten coach service arriving in St Pancras around 09:00 and that same train would be providing a departure around 18:00. So it's not like XC (where you could run one longer diagram but then find that its useful southbound capacity means it ends up somewhere less useful on the return northbound service - a long train running into Birmingham could provide hundreds of extra seats in the morning but be stuck somewhere else in the evening peak that doesn't have the same surge of demand).

And there's the fact that 222s are pretty inadequate for standard class seating capacity, given the length of the trains - Hitatchi ought to be able to provide more standard class seats without too much sweat.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Removing pretty much all of the "south of Market Harborough" passengers ought to free up a bit of capacity on the Nottingham services (by putting the shorter distance passengers onto long modern EMUs)...

...the simplicity of one Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) fleet will avoid the long dwells at St Pancras (where a significant number of services wait to become the equivalent northbound service, unlike Euston where a southbound Glasgow can become a northbound Manchester or a southbound Birmingham can become a northbound Liverpool... GNER/ NXEC/ EC/ VTEC/LNER have similarly been interworking "Yorkshire" and "Scottish" services for some time)...

...eighteen carriages of the LDHS fleet are the little used GC sets, which were only introduced to accommodate the temporary effect of Thameslink chances; these trains aren't used on much...

...then there's the speeded up timetables which may save a unit or two at the northern end due to improved arrivals (and similar interworking)...

...it's not a huge improvement but it is some improvement, and it's ordering stock equivalent to that which has been rolling off the conveyor belt for some time, so it's not like the 222s (where there was no scope for follow-on orders).

Look at it another way - say the EMR service becomes Sheffield - London - Nottingham every half hour (i.e. interworked). So just over two hours for Sheffield - London and just over an hour and a half from London to Nottingham. Call it nine hours for a round trip (i.e. that's allowing plenty of run-around time at all termini, and certainly not dependent upon a "Sheffield in two hours" or "Nottingham in ninety" break-neck approach).

A nine hourly cycle would (obviously) require nine trains to provide an hourly service. So eighteen trains to run a half hourly Sheffield - London - Nottingham service. You could potentially shave it down to an eight hour cycle, which would require only sixteen diagrams, but I'm trying to be realistic here, so let's assume eighteen are needed.

Allowing for some maintenance/ slack/ hot-spares etc, that means that roughly half the diagrams could be run by doubled up trains (say nine diagrams run by single units and nine used by double units... equals twenty seven...equals half a dozen "spare" trains in a fleet of thirty three).

I'm not saying that there'll be any inter-working, I'm just using that as a simpler way of illustrating the total number of diagrams that might be required for a half hourly Sheffield service and a half hourly Nottingham service. BUT, if the two did interwork then it's "useful" that the "nine hour" cycle of running London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield - London during the off-peak would mean that a train running a southbound service in the morning rush hour would be the same train running a northbound service in the evening peak - i.e. you could have a ten coach service arriving in St Pancras around 09:00 and that same train would be providing a departure around 18:00. So it's not like XC (where you could run one longer diagram but then find that its useful southbound capacity means it ends up somewhere less useful on the return northbound service - a long train running into Birmingham could provide hundreds of extra seats in the morning but be stuck somewhere else in the evening peak that doesn't have the same surge of demand).

And there's the fact that 222s are pretty inadequate for standard class seating capacity, given the length of the trains - Hitatchi ought to be able to provide more standard class seats without too much sweat.

Yes, if you take the current timetable, ignore the Corby services and assume a homogenous train type then you can make it work with about 20-21 trains (and that's with my cack-handed approach of scrawling on a printed timetable). So to my simple mind that's 10 5 car, 10 10 car and 3 5 car units for maintenance.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure about that. Yesterday I did SAC - SHF changing at Luton Airport Parkway and Leicester. Starting on the 08:02 northbound TL I ended up on the ex_STP 08:31 arriving at Sheffield at 10:42. To catch an earlier STP EM departure (08:02) would need a STP 07:30 departure. As you say, there's also the cost: Via STP, £238, direct £251 ? (split = £72.90). Same returning, the journey into London on the Sheffields which go fast from Leicester, and TL out to SAC, mostly takes longer than stepping down onto a slow Nottingham and TL at LU Parkway.

Fair enough, you’re quite right it can often be quicker by changing twice, but not much, and more risky obviously.

I’ve done a three change southbound before (Sheffield, Leicester, Kettering, Luton) all with 6-10 minute connections which worked, but my word it was a ‘bitty’ journey and I rated my chances of making it about 50:50*. I think I’d rather have had one seat throughout, even if it meant going past my house fully 75 minutes before getting there!

* thinking about it, it was a York to St Albans via the MML last year as I wanted to see how the wiring was coming on. My XC from York missed the (very tight) connection on to the EMT at Sheffield, so technically the connections didn’t hold. Sadly that meant I had just under an hour to kill in the Sheffield Tap.

 

[Bald Rick]

Removing pretty much all of the "south of Market Harborough" passengers ought to free up a bit of capacity on the Nottingham services (by putting the shorter distance passengers onto long modern EMUs)...

...the simplicity of one Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) fleet will avoid the long dwells at St Pancras (where a significant number of services wait to become the equivalent northbound service, unlike Euston where a southbound Glasgow can become a northbound Manchester or a southbound Birmingham can become a northbound Liverpool... GNER/ NXEC/ EC/ VTEC/LNER have similarly been interworking "Yorkshire" and "Scottish" services for some time)...

...eighteen carriages of the LDHS fleet are the little used GC sets, which were only introduced to accommodate the temporary effect of Thameslink chances; these trains aren't used on much...

...then there's the speeded up timetables which may save a unit or two at the northern end due to improved arrivals (and similar interworking)...

...it's not a huge improvement but it is some improvement, and it's ordering stock equivalent to that which has been rolling off the conveyor belt for some time, so it's not like the 222s (where there was no scope for follow-on orders).

Look at it another way - say the EMR service becomes Sheffield - London - Nottingham every half hour (i.e. interworked). So just over two hours for Sheffield - London and just over an hour and a half from London to Nottingham. Call it nine hours for a round trip (i.e. that's allowing plenty of run-around time at all termini, and certainly not dependent upon a "Sheffield in two hours" or "Nottingham in ninety" break-neck approach).

A nine hourly cycle would (obviously) require nine trains to provide an hourly service. So eighteen trains to run a half hourly Sheffield - London - Nottingham service. You could potentially shave it down to an eight hour cycle, which would require only sixteen diagrams, but I'm trying to be realistic here, so let's assume eighteen are needed.

Allowing for some maintenance/ slack/ hot-spares etc, that means that roughly half the diagrams could be run by doubled up trains (say nine diagrams run by single units and nine used by double units... equals twenty seven...equals half a dozen "spare" trains in a fleet of thirty three).

I'm not saying that there'll be any inter-working, I'm just using that as a simpler way of illustrating the total number of diagrams that might be required for a half hourly Sheffield service and a half hourly Nottingham service. BUT, if the two did interwork then it's "useful" that the "nine hour" cycle of running London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield - London during the off-peak would mean that a train running a southbound service in the morning rush hour would be the same train running a northbound service in the evening peak - i.e. you could have a ten coach service arriving in St Pancras around 09:00 and that same train would be providing a departure around 18:00. So it's not like XC (where you could run one longer diagram but then find that its useful southbound capacity means it ends up somewhere less useful on the return northbound service - a long train running into Birmingham could provide hundreds of extra seats in the morning but be stuck somewhere else in the evening peak that doesn't have the same surge of demand).

And there's the fact that 222s are pretty inadequate for standard class seating capacity, given the length of the trains - Hitatchi ought to be able to provide more standard class seats without too much sweat.

Good assessment. I would expect almost all peak arrivals to London, and peak departures, to be double units, which still leaves a couple spare to double up on any particularly peaky services into Sheffield, assuming that the extra units XC get don’t cover this.

 

[greatescape]

Nice to meet you.
I'm not good at explaining, so I'll introduce this article.
This article provides a detailed analysis of how Abbelio plans to maneuver the five cars.

How Will Abellio East Midlands Railway Maximise Capacity On The Midland Main Line?
by The Anonymous Widower
https://anonw.com/2019/08/01/how-wi...y-maximise-capacity-on-the-midland-main-line/

How Will Abellio East Midlands Railway Maximise Capacity On The Midland Main Line?
In this post, I will try and get a feel to how Abellio East Midlands Railway, will maximise capacity on the Midland Main Line.

The Current Service

There are currently two trains per hour (tph) to both Nottingham and Sheffield and one tph to Corby from London.

Ignoring the Corby service, which will be using electric trains, intermediate calls have these frequencies, from South to North.

• Bedford – One tph
• Wellingborough – One tph
• Kettering – One tph
• Market Harborough – Two tph
• Leicester – Four tph
• Loughborough – Two tph
• East Midlands Parkway – Two tph
• Long Eaton – One tph
• Beeston – One tph
• Derby – Two tph
• Chesterfield – Two tph

As the new bi-mode trains will be more modern, with probably shorter dwell times at each station, I suspect that when Abellio East Midlands Railway implement their ultimate timetable, there will be more stops, without degrading journey times.

These are fastest times.

• London and Nottingham is one hour forty minutes
• London and Sheffield is two hours

I feel that round trips to both destinations will be four hours with some speed increases and shorter station dwell times.

• The current two tph to Nottingham and Sheffield needs eight trains to each destination.
• This is a total of sixteen trains.

As each train could be two five-car trains working as a ten-car train, train numbers for the current service could be as high as thirty-two trains.

A first look seems to indicate that there .will be no overall increase in train frequency, although, as I said earlier, the performance of the new trains should allow extra station stops.

It also indicates to me, that any increases in frequency between London and Nottingham/Sheffield will need extra trains.

The Electrified High Speed Line South Of Kettering

Midland Main Line services South of Kettering are as follows.

• Two tph to London and Nottingham
• Two tph between London and Sheffield
• One tph between London and Corby.

From December 2021, there will be two tph between London and Corby.

The maximum number of services between London and Kettering on the electrified section currently envisaged is only six tph or one train every ten minutes.

As the Class 700 trains on Thameslink are capable of using digital signalling and all the new trains will also be similarly equipped, I wouldn’t be surprised that the theoretical capacity of the electrified fast lines could be higher than the proposed six tph. |Especially, when digital signalling is installed.

The number of trains in the fleet, is much more of a limit on services, than the capacity of the Midland Main Line.

If all trains were ten cars, the following numbers of trains would be needed.

• Current two tph – 32 trains
• Increase to three tph – 48 trains
• Increase to three tph – 64 trains

Are there enough passengers to fill all these trains?

Does St. Pancras Have Enough Capacity?

St. Pancras station has four platforms for Midland Main Line services.

• The platforms are long enough to take two five-car Class 222 trains,.
• They would surely accommodate a ten-car formation of the new Hitachi trains.
• Each platform can probably handle three or four tph, giving a total capacity of 12-16 tph.

As four tph to Nottingham and Sheffield and two tph to Corby is only a total of ten tph, there is enough platform capacity for several years to come.

If there is a problem, it is that the large numbers of passengers would overwhelm the stairs and escalators between the ground level of the station and the platforms.

I am certain, that just like the Eurostar platforms at St. Pancras, the Midland Main Line platforms will need better passenger access and facilities.

Will it even be enough, when up to six tph, all of which could be 240 metres long, start to arrive in December 2021?

What could be done to help solve the capacity problem at St. Pancras station in the future?

Better Access To The Midland Main Line Platforms

Consider.

• Space is limited to add extra escalators, lifts and places to wait
• St. Pancras is a Grade I Listed Building.
• As I don’t travel through the station in the Peak, the escalators seem to always be going the wrong way.

Improving the current access will be very difficult.

This Google Map shows the Northern End of the station.



Note.

1. The Midland Main Line platforms are the two island platforms on the left.
2. The Southeastern HighSpeed platforms are the two island platforms on the right.
3. The Eurostar platforms are the three island platforms in the middle.

Could a second entrance to some of the platforms be built here?

It would be very difficult, unless the extension was future-proofed when it was built.

Underground Improvements

Getting between the Midland Main Line platforms and the Underground is an obstable course.

As a Londoner, who’s had the operation to have the Underground Map implanted in my brain, I generally go to the Midland Main Line platforms at St. Pancras by taking one of the following.

A bus from close to my house to outside the station.

• A Metropolitan Line train from Moorgate
• A Northern Line train from Angel.
• A Piccadilly Line train from Manor House
• A Victoria Line train from Highbury & Islington

The last four need a bus to get to the Underground.

I usually come back home, by spending just over a tenner on a black cab!

Will The New Brent Cross Thameslink Station Allow Cross Platform Interchange Between Midland Main Line and Thameslink Services?

Consider.

• The proposed Brent Cross Thameslink will be just North of Cricklewood station.
• Midland Main Line services through the station would be six tph.
• Thameslink services through the station would be fourteen tph
• The West London Orbital Railway could be built to connect the station to High Speed Two and Heathrow

Would it take the pressure off St. Pancras?

It might do, if a cross-platform interchange could be arranged.

Could Some Midland Main Line Services Use Thameslink?

Consider.

• The obvious service to go through Thameslink would be the two tph service between Corby and St. Pancras.
• Thameslink is currently setup to handle 24 tph, but it has been designed for 30 tph.
• The Corby service will stop at Kettering, Luton and Luton Airport Parkway, to the North of London.
• It could perhaps terminate at the soon-to-be-rebuilt Gatwick Airport station in the South.

It might work!

Especially, if Kettering station were to be rebuilt to have cross-platform interchange between Corby sewrvices and the bi-mode ones going further North.

Splitting And Joining Trains

In Rock Rail Wins Again!, I gave this simple example of how the splitting and joining capability of Hitachi AT-300 trains can be used.

A ten-car train might leave St. Pancras as two five-car units running as a pair. It could split at East Midlands Parkway station and one train could go to Nottingham and the other to Derby. Coming South the two trains would join at East Midlands Parkway.

I feel that Derby, East Midlands Parkway and Leicester are ideal stations on the Midland Main Line, where services could be split and joined.

• They have at least four platforms.
• The platforms are long and straight.

The two terminals at Nottingham and Sheffield could also probably be used to enable services to serve more destinations.

Shorter trains must have advantages on some routes.

• Capacity is better matched to demand.
• Platforms may not need to be extended.
• Services can be run by a driver and a conductor.

Will Abellio East Midlands Railway use splitting and joining to increase the coverage of their services?

Great Western Railway’s Class 800, 801 and 802 trains have the capability to split and join and the operator doesn’t seem to use it. Although, they do split and join Class 387 trains.

Extended Services To And From The North And East

The ability to split and join, that could be used to extend services to the North And East.

Serving Barnsley, South Yorkshire And Leeds

Consider.

• In Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019 – A New Station At Barnsley Dearne Valley, I talked about a proposed new station at Barnsley Dearne Valley on the route between Sheffield and Leeds.
• The Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019, also envisages a new Midland Main Line station at Rotherham.
• This report on the Transport for the North web site, is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.
• The report states that there will be a fast Sheffield and Leeds service at a frequency of four tph, that taqkes twenty-eight minutes.
• Currently, East Midlands services on this route take just over half-an-hour with only a stop at Wakefield Westgate.

I wonder if there are paths and need for a London and Sheffield service to split at Sheffield with, the two five-car trains going to different destinations.

• Leeds via Rotherham, Barnsley Dearne Valley and Wakefield Westgate, is one possibility.
• Could a service go to Huddersfield?
• Hull is probably too far.

One tph could terminate at Sheffield and one splitting and one tph could split and serve other destinations.

Advantages could include.

• Barnsley and Rotherham get a direct hourly service to London.
• South Yorkshire and Leeds have a direct hourly service to the East Midlands.
• Sheffield and Leeds have an hourly fast service.

I’m sure Abellio have a very workable plan to improve services North of Sheffield.

Serving Lincolnshire And Nottinghamshire

Consider.

• Splitting and joining at Nottingham may allow an increase in direct services to and from Lincoln.
• Perhaps parts of North Lincolnshire could be well-served by a fast train from Nottingham.
• Would Mansfield and Worksop benefit from a direct service from London on the Robin Hood Line, after a reverse at Nottingham.

The five-car trains give the flexibility to do the previously unthinkable.

Conclusion

There is a lot of developments that can or will happen with Midland Main Line services.

A separate article is available for Corby Service vehicles.
"Bombardier Doesn’t Seem Too Disappointed On Missing Out On The Abellio East Midlands Railway Order".
https://anonw.com/2019/08/01/bombar...t-on-the-abellio-east-midlands-railway-order/

 

[43096]

Removing pretty much all of the "south of Market Harborough" passengers ought to free up a bit of capacity on the Nottingham services (by putting the shorter distance passengers onto long modern EMUs)...

...the simplicity of one Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) fleet will avoid the long dwells at St Pancras (where a significant number of services wait to become the equivalent northbound service, unlike Euston where a southbound Glasgow can become a northbound Manchester or a southbound Birmingham can become a northbound Liverpool... GNER/ NXEC/ EC/ VTEC/LNER have similarly been interworking "Yorkshire" and "Scottish" services for some time)...

...eighteen carriages of the LDHS fleet are the little used GC sets, which were only introduced to accommodate the temporary effect of Thameslink chances; these trains aren't used on much...

...then there's the speeded up timetables which may save a unit or two at the northern end due to improved arrivals (and similar interworking)...

...it's not a huge improvement but it is some improvement, and it's ordering stock equivalent to that which has been rolling off the conveyor belt for some time, so it's not like the 222s (where there was no scope for follow-on orders).

Look at it another way - say the EMR service becomes Sheffield - London - Nottingham every half hour (i.e. interworked). So just over two hours for Sheffield - London and just over an hour and a half from London to Nottingham. Call it nine hours for a round trip (i.e. that's allowing plenty of run-around time at all termini, and certainly not dependent upon a "Sheffield in two hours" or "Nottingham in ninety" break-neck approach).

A nine hourly cycle would (obviously) require nine trains to provide an hourly service. So eighteen trains to run a half hourly Sheffield - London - Nottingham service. You could potentially shave it down to an eight hour cycle, which would require only sixteen diagrams, but I'm trying to be realistic here, so let's assume eighteen are needed.

Allowing for some maintenance/ slack/ hot-spares etc, that means that roughly half the diagrams could be run by doubled up trains (say nine diagrams run by single units and nine used by double units... equals twenty seven...equals half a dozen "spare" trains in a fleet of thirty three).

I'm not saying that there'll be any inter-working, I'm just using that as a simpler way of illustrating the total number of diagrams that might be required for a half hourly Sheffield service and a half hourly Nottingham service. BUT, if the two did interwork then it's "useful" that the "nine hour" cycle of running London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield - London during the off-peak would mean that a train running a southbound service in the morning rush hour would be the same train running a northbound service in the evening peak - i.e. you could have a ten coach service arriving in St Pancras around 09:00 and that same train would be providing a departure around 18:00. So it's not like XC (where you could run one longer diagram but then find that its useful southbound capacity means it ends up somewhere less useful on the return northbound service - a long train running into Birmingham could provide hundreds of extra seats in the morning but be stuck somewhere else in the evening peak that doesn't have the same surge of demand).

And there's the fact that 222s are pretty inadequate for standard class seating capacity, given the length of the trains - Hitatchi ought to be able to provide more standard class seats without too much sweat.

I did a similar back-of-envelope call and got a similar result. There are diagramming inefficiencies currently, particularly the Nottingham fast, which sits at St Pancras for 70 minutes.

 

[Kettledrum]

Yes, if you take the current timetable, ignore the Corby services and assume a homogenous train type then you can make it work with about 20-21 trains (and that's with my cack-handed approach of scrawling on a printed timetable). So to my simple mind that's 10 5 car, 10 10 car and 3 5 car units for maintenance.

so if you're right on this, the chances of catching a train with 10 coaches or 5 coaches could be 50:50

obviously they will try and put the 10 coach trains on the peaks but some of the off peak journeys could be very busy.

 

[Bald Rick]

so if you're right on this, the chances of catching a train with 10 coaches or 5 coaches could be 50:50

obviously they will try and put the 10 coach trains on the peaks but some of the off peak journeys could be very busy.

Given that plenty of trains are running around as 4/5 coach Meridians now, often with rather too much first class, are they busy now?

 

[Jozhua]

Removing pretty much all of the "south of Market Harborough" passengers ought to free up a bit of capacity on the Nottingham services (by putting the shorter distance passengers onto long modern EMUs)...

...the simplicity of one Long Distance High Speed (LDHS) fleet will avoid the long dwells at St Pancras (where a significant number of services wait to become the equivalent northbound service, unlike Euston where a southbound Glasgow can become a northbound Manchester or a southbound Birmingham can become a northbound Liverpool... GNER/ NXEC/ EC/ VTEC/LNER have similarly been interworking "Yorkshire" and "Scottish" services for some time)...

...eighteen carriages of the LDHS fleet are the little used GC sets, which were only introduced to accommodate the temporary effect of Thameslink chances; these trains aren't used on much...

...then there's the speeded up timetables which may save a unit or two at the northern end due to improved arrivals (and similar interworking)...

...it's not a huge improvement but it is some improvement, and it's ordering stock equivalent to that which has been rolling off the conveyor belt for some time, so it's not like the 222s (where there was no scope for follow-on orders).

Look at it another way - say the EMR service becomes Sheffield - London - Nottingham every half hour (i.e. interworked). So just over two hours for Sheffield - London and just over an hour and a half from London to Nottingham. Call it nine hours for a round trip (i.e. that's allowing plenty of run-around time at all termini, and certainly not dependent upon a "Sheffield in two hours" or "Nottingham in ninety" break-neck approach).

A nine hourly cycle would (obviously) require nine trains to provide an hourly service. So eighteen trains to run a half hourly Sheffield - London - Nottingham service. You could potentially shave it down to an eight hour cycle, which would require only sixteen diagrams, but I'm trying to be realistic here, so let's assume eighteen are needed.

Allowing for some maintenance/ slack/ hot-spares etc, that means that roughly half the diagrams could be run by doubled up trains (say nine diagrams run by single units and nine used by double units... equals twenty seven...equals half a dozen "spare" trains in a fleet of thirty three).

I'm not saying that there'll be any inter-working, I'm just using that as a simpler way of illustrating the total number of diagrams that might be required for a half hourly Sheffield service and a half hourly Nottingham service. BUT, if the two did interwork then it's "useful" that the "nine hour" cycle of running London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield - London during the off-peak would mean that a train running a southbound service in the morning rush hour would be the same train running a northbound service in the evening peak - i.e. you could have a ten coach service arriving in St Pancras around 09:00 and that same train would be providing a departure around 18:00. So it's not like XC (where you could run one longer diagram but then find that its useful southbound capacity means it ends up somewhere less useful on the return northbound service - a long train running into Birmingham could provide hundreds of extra seats in the morning but be stuck somewhere else in the evening peak that doesn't have the same surge of demand).

And there's the fact that 222s are pretty inadequate for standard class seating capacity, given the length of the trains - Hitatchi ought to be able to provide more standard class seats without too much sweat.

Thanks a lot for posting this assessment, has cleared things up a lot for me!

If the 180's are kept for some reason, I guess that could provide more capacity beyond this, although the non-interchangeability and time needed to wait for a loco to haul it when it breaks down would probably eat into that a little bit.

Am I right in thinking that the 4/5 car trains still have quite a large "buffet" area? Don't really see it in use very often, the train mostly seems to be served by the trolley, so I guess if an area like this isn't fitted to the AT300, which I doubt it will be, then that should account for an extra 10% or so in capacity?

Given that plenty of trains are running around as 4/5 coach Meridians now, often with rather too much first class, are they busy now?

In my experience, almost always yes. I actually find the Northern end (Beyond Leicester) of the Sheffield leg quite busy, only gets reasonably quiet after Derby!
Can quite often be standing room only in the off-peak, especially with the 4 car meridians.

 

[Roast Veg]

I can attest that the 4 car sets are very inadequate - the all stops 1D11 to Nottingham is (presumably) booked 4 car and is one of the most overcrowded services of the day.

 

[londonmidland]

On a separate note, 43423 has been de-branded with the East Midlands Trains logo and coloured Stagecoach stripes removed and 43480 has has been partly de-branded, with a cut-off on the East Midlands Trains logo. (the Angel HST's)

 

[JaJaWa]

First Class 158 rebranded to "EMR Regional". Source: https://twitter.com/ceaston66/status/1159021207334903808?s=21

 

[samuelmorris]

I like the 'olde worlde' font but could they not at least have washed the unit first?

 

[jfowkes]

I assume those decals are temporary? Maybe it's not worth washing it until it goes in for a "proper" rebranding.

 

[LeeLivery]

When was the last time a unit was running around with a future operator's brand on it?

 

[Bornin1980s]

I like the 'olde worlde' font but could they not at least have washed the unit first?

Looks more like shadows to me.

According to The Railway Magazine, the AT-300s will have four engines. How is this possible? On all AT-300s so far, the end cars have both contained the transformers, with five car units having three engines. How would they fit another engine in?

 

[samuelmorris]

Presumably having a single transformer per 5-car unit and putting the fourth engine in the opposite driving vehicle.

 

[Mariner16]

EMT's current 158s have started their rebranding