New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[OrangeJuice]

Northern have express a wish to start replacing sprinters once the pacers go. I agree about Castlefield services, replacing 150s with 156s and 158s would be a bad idea because of dwell times. There are plenty of other routes where they are better Angel Trains owns most of Northerns 150s and won't want a complete wipeout early next franchise. It would make sense for them to agree a deal and transfer some of EMTs redundant stock to Northern.

If EMR replaces the regional fleet with 170s and 175s they would be a bit overkill for routes currently operated by 153s.

Replacing 153s with 170s or 175s may be overkill in terms of capacity but at least there's scope for growth. Also would these units have better acceleration and hence be able to improve journey times too.

If both improved journey times and 'modern' refurbished stock were introduced I'm sure the growth will come

 

[jw]

Does anyone have any idea on what proportion of 153s operate as single cars throughout the day, and how many are semi-permanently joined to create longer units, either with other 153s or 156s/158s?

 

[Robertj21a]

Journey times increasing and timetables not working.

Low performance is not a badge of honour...

Not expect any wires beyond MH any time soon.

Isn't it Leicester Station/road bridge that's a key problem anyway ?

 

[InTheEastMids]

Isn't it Leicester Station/road bridge that's a key problem anyway ?

It certainly looks low, there was some discussion in the MML Electrification thread that might be worth searching for.

Also electrification through Leicester will have a key interface with the Syston-Wigston Capacity scheme which is wending it's way through the system. Best check the Enhancement Delivery Plan of you haven't heard about it.

 

[Jozhua]

Does anyone have any idea on what proportion of 153s operate as single cars throughout the day, and how many are semi-permanently joined to create longer units, either with other 153s or 156s/158s?

The Matlock-Newark almost always operates as at least a 2 car, and when a single 153 runs it almost always isn't enough. Same applies for Derby - Crewe, although more often than not it's one quite overcrowded single car!

Also, what date will the full details of the new franchise be released?

 

[dk1]

The Matlock-Newark almost always operates as at least a 2 car, and when a single 153 runs it almost always isn't enough. Same applies for Derby - Crewe, although more often than not it's one quite overcrowded single car!

Also, what date will the full details of the new franchise be released?

After the ten day cooling off period. It could be challenged in that time.

 

[Jozhua]

After the ten day cooling off period. It could be challenged in that time.

So in another 5 days I presume?

However, with Stagecoach's plans to launch a lawsuit against the DFT, it could be challenged.

 

[dk1]

So in another 5 days I presume?

However, with Stagecoach's plans to launch a lawsuit against the DFT, it could be challenged.

Yes mate if it actually happens. I'd be very pleased indeed as would hold a glimmer of hope for my beloved Virgin Trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes mate if it actually happens. I'd be very pleased indeed as would hold a glimmer of hope for my beloved Virgin Trains.

It wouldn't. Virgin Rail Group will end this year regardless of what happens with the franchise. The new one would be a Virgin branded Stagecoach operation with added baguette and red wine - not at all the same.

 

[dk1]

It wouldn't. Virgin Rail Group will end this year regardless of what happens with the franchise. The new one would be a Virgin branded Stagecoach operation with added baguette and red wine - not at all the same.

As long as the name survived on rail that would be enough for me but as you say not the same. Oh well

 

[Goldfish62]

After the ten day cooling off period. It could be challenged in that time.

Stagecoach have requested that the standstill period is extended by 14 days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As long as the name survived on rail that would be enough for me but as you say not the same. Oh well

Indeed. I'd have been happy with VRG continuing for an indefinite period, but less so for a pure Stagecoach operation on InterCity (though SWT was always pretty good). I think of the remaining two I prefer the MTR bid, given that everything First touches tends to turn to the proverbial.

 

[dk1]

Indeed. I'd have been happy with VRG continuing for an indefinite period, but less so for a pure Stagecoach operation on InterCity (though SWT was always pretty good). I think of the remaining two I prefer the MTR bid, given that everything First touches tends to turn to the proverbial.

I don't have anything against First except their buses some times. Hull Trains & GWR are pretty good as can TPE especially with the upcoming larger fleet. I also had nothing against Scotrail either under them or to be fair Great Eastern (even though I worked for Anglia).

 

[grumpyoldman01]

When speculating about future rolling stock plans:

- there seems to be a consensus amongst all published material hat there will be TOTAL fleet replacement;

- although the rail minister used the word "new", published material (from DfT and Abellio) only claim that the main line trains will be replaced with new ones; moreover, to comply with the ITT, these must be bi-modes;

- St Pancras - Corby services will be worked by 12-car trains in the peaks; platform constraints (STP ones are shown in the Sectional Appendix as being 260m) mean the Corby's must therefore be formed of 20m long vehicles;

- quality played a major role in determining the successful bidder; the ITT showed a worked example so that bidders could understand the methodology the DfT was using.

- consequently, class 379s, with 2+2 seating in standard and 2+1 in first, would probably score higher than some other EMUs being proposed herein for Corby services.

- however, new bi-modes were mandated for St Pancras - Sheffield/Nottingham services; moreover, they had to be able to match the performance of the 222s, and this was described in such a way as to make it clear that this was when working in non-electric mode as well as when as straight electrics.

- DfT acknowledged that a bi-mode which met this requirement didn't exist at the time the ITT was issued, and laid down when a prototype had to be delivered to this country for testing.

- for the regional fleet, 153s and 156s are definitely out, as they are not air conditioned; and remember, the "new" trains are described as being more modern and faster than the existing fleet, which also discounts 158s.

- how many diagrams will be required to cover the Norwich - Derby services? Will there be sufficient 180s coming off lease? Their 125mph capability would be useful on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough, and could cut about 10 minutes of the time allowed for a 158 between these two points. Can engines be isolated on the flat lands east of Peterborough where they are not required?

- certainly, 175s and 185s will be coming off lease in the not-to-distant future, but there would be operational problems with them as 175s can't make use of SP speeds, and 185s can't make use of HST, MU, DMU, or SP enhanced speeds. Moreover, whereas all of the current regional fleet DMUs can work in multiple, 175s can't work with 185s, and neither can work with 170s.

 

[Jozhua]

When speculating about future rolling stock plans:

- there seems to be a consensus amongst all published material hat there will be TOTAL fleet replacement;

- although the rail minister used the word "new", published material (from DfT and Abellio) only claim that the main line trains will be replaced with new ones; moreover, to comply with the ITT, these must be bi-modes;

- St Pancras - Corby services will be worked by 12-car trains in the peaks; platform constraints (STP ones are shown in the Sectional Appendix as being 260m) mean the Corby's must therefore be formed of 20m long vehicles;

- quality played a major role in determining the successful bidder; the ITT showed a worked example so that bidders could understand the methodology the DfT was using.

- consequently, class 379s, with 2+2 seating in standard and 2+1 in first, would probably score higher than some other EMUs being proposed herein for Corby services.

- however, new bi-modes were mandated for St Pancras - Sheffield/Nottingham services; moreover, they had to be able to match the performance of the 222s, and this was described in such a way as to make it clear that this was when working in non-electric mode as well as when as straight electrics.

- DfT acknowledged that a bi-mode which met this requirement didn't exist at the time the ITT was issued, and laid down when a prototype had to be delivered to this country for testing.

- for the regional fleet, 153s and 156s are definitely out, as they are not air conditioned; and remember, the "new" trains are described as being more modern and faster than the existing fleet, which also discounts 158s.

- how many diagrams will be required to cover the Norwich - Derby services? Will there be sufficient 180s coming off lease? Their 125mph capability would be useful on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough, and could cut about 10 minutes of the time allowed for a 158 between these two points. Can engines be isolated on the flat lands east of Peterborough where they are not required?

- certainly, 175s and 185s will be coming off lease in the not-to-distant future, but there would be operational problems with them as 175s can't make use of SP speeds, and 185s can't make use of HST, MU, DMU, or SP enhanced speeds. Moreover, whereas all of the current regional fleet DMUs can work in multiple, 175s can't work with 185s, and neither can work with 170s.

Fantastic post, clears up a lot!

Guess everyone is having a hard time believing the government would actually commission new rolling stock for the railways, especially north of the M25!

After all the disasters up in Northern land, expectations are probably set quite low for EMR but hopefully we'll get a pleasent surprise! Or it will all be cancelled and the Pacers from the north will be given 20 year derogations and run on the rush hour St Pancras to Sheffield stopping at every station along the way!

 

[Prestige15]

When they say 'modern' with

Didn't think of those. I'm not sure how popular they would be, though, given their reliability issues. I can see them having an early demise.

If they do, possibly a combination of 170 and 175?

Seems like it since it mention 'modern' and 'air con' on its regional service. Both are coming off lease

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

- how many diagrams will be required to cover the Norwich - Derby services? Will there be sufficient 180s coming off lease? Their 125mph capability would be useful on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough, and could cut about 10 minutes of the time allowed for a 158 between these two points. Can engines be isolated on the flat lands east of Peterborough where they are not required?

Would the 180s not be subject to more stringent speed restrictions on the lines east of Nottingham? I understand that these have a great length of SP differential PSRs, which I believe the 180s don't qualify for. But even if this weren't an issue, 4 180s from Hull Trains ain't going to cut it in terms of Norwich-Derby unless you cut the frequency very drastically indeed (c.f. the kind of service Hull Trains operates over a similar order length/time route). And Grand Central won't be giving up their 180s unless they are given an adequate replacement - in which form? 222s?

If the 4 Hull Trains 180s don't make their way to Grand Central, and instead get scrapped (which seems a little unlikely to me TBH), I can't see that many tears will be shed...

 

[mushroomchow]

- St Pancras - Corby services will be worked by 12-car trains in the peaks; platform constraints (STP ones are shown in the Sectional Appendix as being 260m) mean the Corby's must therefore be formed of 20m long vehicles;

- consequently, class 379s, with 2+2 seating in standard and 2+1 in first, would probably score higher than some other EMUs being proposed herein for Corby services.

- however, new bi-modes were mandated for St Pancras - Sheffield/Nottingham services; moreover, they had to be able to match the performance of the 222s, and this was described in such a way as to make it clear that this was when working in non-electric mode as well as when as straight electrics.

So in other words, the DfT are going to have to backpedal on their demand for "intercity specification" rolling stock for the Corby services in order to squeeze the capacity they want out of the route? The representative completely pooh-poohed the concept of "regional" EMUs such as 350s or 379s being used on the service during the consultation meeting I attended in Leicester and claimed it was a requirement of the new franchise bids to deliver intercity stock that would, and I quote, "match or better the existing Meridian stock" in use on the route. Overlooking the platform length at one of the country's flagship stations when demanding rolling stock upgrades for key routes, then quietly trying to bury the original plan, is poor form.

For the record, I have no qualms with the use of regional EMUs on the Corby services - the LNWR services on the WCML are longer but perfectly comfortable - but I just tot that up as another notch in the epic novel entitled "The DfT Don't Have A Clue What They're Doing" - promising the earth without doing their research.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So in other words, the DfT are going to have to backpedal on their demand for "intercity specification" rolling stock for the Corby services in order to squeeze the capacity they want out of the route? The representative completely pooh-poohed the concept of "regional" EMUs such as 350s or 379s being used on the service during the consultation meeting I attended in Leicester and claimed it was a requirement of the new franchise bids to deliver intercity stock that would, and I quote, "match or better the existing Meridian stock" in use on the route.

Class 379s do match or better filthy, rattling DMUs. Or are we getting onto door-position prejudice here?

 

[Mikey C]

Class 379s do match or better filthy, rattling DMUs. Or are we getting onto door-position prejudice here?

Yes, 379s are nice trains, I imagine a lot of commuters elsewhere would be very happy with them. Corby is only 1 hour 10 minutes from London anyway

 

[hwl]

Class 379s do match or better filthy, rattling DMUs. Or are we getting onto door-position prejudice here?

Sounds like it. Dwell times will matter on the route.

 

[SPADTrap]

Class 360s for Corby work! Ex GA ones that is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 360s for Corby work! ;]

Desiros would be welcome, but you'd probably want to swap the seats to 2+2 (2+1 1st).

 

[whhistle]

This doesn't seem necessary to me, either keep them as they are or if you need uniformality form them back into 4 and 9 car units.

Or if there's an opportunity to make them all 6 coaches or something similar?
The idea being that you don't have two trains coupled together permenantly, meaning two train Managers, two catering staff, two First Class hosts...

 

[ainsworth74]

Must admit I've always thought that the 379s are a near perfect fit for the St Pancras - Corby service. I assume it also wouldn't be beyond the whit of man to increase their top speed to 110mph? That might be useful on the route into St Pancras.

 

[ainsworth74]

Class 360s for Corby work! Ex GA ones that is.

What's the source of this? They'd certainly need a new interior to avoid a massive downgrade to the service (currently they're 3+2 in standard with no tables and 2+2 in first with stub tables for anyone who is unfamiliar with them)!

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Class 360s for Corby work! Ex GA ones that is.

Here's hoping they go via a sizeable overhaul to give them some form of decent 2+2 interior (so definitely new seats), and a bit of proper First Class. Wonder if they will consider something like a 'trolley bay' such as on 350/4s?

 

[hwl]

Here's hoping they go via a sizeable overhaul to give them some form of decent 2+2 interior (so definitely new seats), and a bit of proper First Class. Wonder if they will consider something like a 'trolley bay' such as on 350/4s?

A trolley bay may not be that much use on 12car services on units with no gangway ends...

 

[InTheEastMids]

When speculating about future rolling stock plans:

- there seems to be a consensus amongst all published material hat there will be TOTAL fleet replacement;

- although the rail minister used the word "new", published material (from DfT and Abellio) only claim that the main line trains will be replaced with new ones; moreover, to comply with the ITT, these must be bi-modes;

- St Pancras - Corby services will be worked by 12-car trains in the peaks; platform constraints (STP ones are shown in the Sectional Appendix as being 260m) mean the Corby's must therefore be formed of 20m long vehicles;

- quality played a major role in determining the successful bidder; the ITT showed a worked example so that bidders could understand the methodology the DfT was using.

- consequently, class 379s, with 2+2 seating in standard and 2+1 in first, would probably score higher than some other EMUs being proposed herein for Corby services.

- however, new bi-modes were mandated for St Pancras - Sheffield/Nottingham services; moreover, they had to be able to match the performance of the 222s, and this was described in such a way as to make it clear that this was when working in non-electric mode as well as when as straight electrics.

- DfT acknowledged that a bi-mode which met this requirement didn't exist at the time the ITT was issued, and laid down when a prototype had to be delivered to this country for testing.

- for the regional fleet, 153s and 156s are definitely out, as they are not air conditioned; and remember, the "new" trains are described as being more modern and faster than the existing fleet, which also discounts 158s.

- how many diagrams will be required to cover the Norwich - Derby services? Will there be sufficient 180s coming off lease? Their 125mph capability would be useful on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough, and could cut about 10 minutes of the time allowed for a 158 between these two points. Can engines be isolated on the flat lands east of Peterborough where they are not required?

- certainly, 175s and 185s will be coming off lease in the not-to-distant future, but there would be operational problems with them as 175s can't make use of SP speeds, and 185s can't make use of HST, MU, DMU, or SP enhanced speeds. Moreover, whereas all of the current regional fleet DMUs can work in multiple, 175s can't work with 185s, and neither can work with 170s.

This is a great post, agree that only the 379s meet the Corby spec without redoing the interior.

Think the 180s were being talked about as a way of releasing the 3 short exGC HSTs, which cover 2 diagrams on the London route. So 4 180s ought to be just about enough (haha).
Although the health warning about all this is that it is all (informed) speculation built on the DfT announcement and knowledge about what rolling stock is becoming available.

 

[Class 170101]

Given a May 2020 start date for new trains on the MML I am going for Class 180s.

Class 180s would gain you time on the ECML but would overall lengthen journey times between Norwich and Nottingham due to the many Sprinter Differentials overall.