Stopgap options to cover for delays to introduction of Class 810 for EMR?

[bunnahabhain]

And as much as everyone used to love saying they carted fresh air around during the day - the HSTs on the Nottingham fasts always had the cheapest advances from Nottingham/East Midlands Parkway/Leicester to avoid overcrowding on the Nottingham slow and the two Sheffields. These days the slow leaves Nottingham just as busy -if not busier - than the fast - leaving minimal capacity for people joining at the smaller stations.

I many respects the "fast" ought to revert to what it used to do and call at Loughborough to ease some of the pressure every second hour which it did until the 125mph TT.

 

[MCR247]

I many respects the "fast" ought to revert to what it used to do and call at Loughborough to ease some of the pressure every second hour which it did until the 125mph TT.

I do always feel for Loughborough passengers southbound - with a choice between a wedged 222 from Shef and Derby that is one stop - Leicester, or a busy 222 from Nottingham that stops at Market Harborough and Kettering too

 

[gingertom]

Now that I'd like to see

or hear

 

[London Trains]

I many respects the "fast" ought to revert to what it used to do and call at Loughborough to ease some of the pressure every second hour which it did until the 125mph TT.

In addition, I think it would make sense to remove the East Midlands Parkway stop from the Nottingham "slow" service - the station isn't particularly busy, and it would speed up journeys on the slower service, with the Leicester to Nottingham stopper retaining the link from East Midlands Parkway to Nottingham.

 

[cactustwirly]

For you, perhaps.

Well it resulted in a significant capacity drop in on the MML.
This wouldn't be an issues with the HSTs still around as they could have been worked harder and the 222s wouldn't have been so stretched.

The 5 daytime HST diagrams had the same capacity as 10 222s don't forget

 

[43066]

Well it resulted in a significant capacity drop in on the MML.
This wouldn't be an issues with the HSTs still around as they could have been worked harder and the 222s wouldn't have been so stretched.

The 5 daytime HST diagrams had the same capacity as 10 222s don't forget

I think technically that was got around by arguing that the 360s increased the total number of seats in and out of London - which they did - however that ignored the position of the intercity fleet and the impact of those travelling to and from north of Wellingborough.

 

[yorksrob]

For you, perhaps.

For anyone who cared to get a seat.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Either that or at the very least some 221s being used temporarily (although that hasn't actually been discussed much outside this forum)

Here is an idea cut the London to Sheffield via Derby services at Derby and have Cross Country operate Derby to Sheffield shuttles with the six spare 221s as Cross Country already sign the 221s and the route so less training is needed and you don't have the issue of a 221 ending up on a 222 joining or splitting working as they would be operated by different TOCs. If you want, you could have those 221s in a part EMR and Part XC livery. This would save 2-4 units.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

What 125mph locomotive would they be using?

Class 67 maybe?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Here is an idea cut the London to Sheffield via Derby services at Derby and have Cross Country operate Derby to Sheffield shuttles with the six spare 221s as Cross Country already sign the 221s and the route so less training is needed and you don't have the issue of a 221 ending up on a 222 joining or splitting working as they would be operated by different TOCs. If you want, you could have those 221s in a part EMR and Part XC livery. This would save 2-4 units.

What about CrossCountry running Leicester - Sheffield shuttles. They've used that route during disruption and engineering works so to me it seems an idea to consider.

 

[liamf656]

Sorry BerkshireRails your idea is far too complicated and far fetched when the idea to use 221s on EMR is almost effortless in comparison

Here is an idea cut the London to Sheffield via Derby services at Derby...

And completely remove all direct Sheffield to London journeys!? With respect that's a pretty bonkers idea

...and have Cross Country operate Derby to Sheffield shuttles with the six spare 221s as Cross Country already sign the 221s and the route so less training is needed...

Where do you get the extra staff from? Crosscountry won't just have people at the ready

...and you don't have the issue of a 221 ending up on a 222 joining or splitting working as they would be operated by different TOCs...

They wouldn't "end up" in places they shouldn't, they'd just be put on diagrams that don't involve splitting and joining. You don't realise how much time and effort goes into careful planning, especially when we had the 180s and HSTs alongside 222s, or if you look at how much effort goes into making sure 158s/170s in multiple is avoided. I'm sure they'd cope with a few 221s if we had some!

 

[QSK19]

For you, perhaps.

Liking the HSTs or not is indeed a very subjective view (some liked them, some didn’t); however when looking at the substance-over-style argument, they transported people along the MML with a good level of capacity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 11:34 ==

And everyone else - we went from having enough capacity and time to maintain the trains to not having enough capacity and trains run into the ground. The dated interiors might not have been everyone's cup of tea but the Midland sets were recently refurbished and in excellent condition. They should have stayed until their actual replacements arrived rather than daft solutions like the awful 180s.

Hear hear! Perfectly good HST sets were replaced by the ex-LNER HST crap just to achieve a little less PRM non-compliance and then of course the 180s.

Personally, I found the 180s to be comfortable, but they were not a good solution versus keeping the “original EMR” HSTs, especially when it comes to their (180s’) technical reliability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 11:37 ==

I do always feel for Loughborough passengers southbound - with a choice between a wedged 222 from Shef and Derby that is one stop - Leicester, or a busy 222 from Nottingham that stops at Market Harborough and Kettering too

Yep we do get a pretty raw deal! When catching the latter service and I’m not in a rush, I always swap to a 360 at Kettering. I know what I write next is dependent on the time of the day, however arriving into STP half an hour later in order to escape a sardine can and enjoy more lightly-loaded carriages is well worth it!

 

[londonmidland]

I think the only realistic option here is to use the spare Voyagers which are not currently being utilised by anyone.

It’s the closest to familiarisation when compared to the 222s.

Utilising the 180s, which are plagued with issues and have been sitting dormant for a long time now, I don’t think is a good idea.

Every other idea which has been suggested I don’t think will even be considered for the short-medium term.

EMR Intercity services are busy enough as they are so any reductions in service patterns would be pretty catastrophic.

 

[Elecman]

LSLs 2x HST sets

 

[BerkshireRails]

Sorry BerkshireRails your idea is far too complicated and far fetched when the idea to use 221s on EMR is almost effortless in comparison

And completely remove all direct Sheffield to London journeys!? With respect that's a pretty bonkers idea

Where do you get the extra staff from? Crosscountry won't just have people at the ready

They wouldn't "end up" in places they shouldn't, they'd just be put on diagrams that don't involve splitting and joining. You don't realise how much time and effort goes into careful planning, especially when we had the 180s and HSTs alongside 222s, or if you look at how much effort goes into making sure 158s/170s in multiple is avoided. I'm sure they'd cope with a few 221s if we had some!

Removal of the Sheffield to London services is one option, as there are other services that still require a change to service the route. It is better to cut services that have alternatives than cut services that have no alternatives, like the Melton service, which could, in the worst case, be operated with an EMR regional unit just to allow a Corby to Oakham link.
The 221s will be going to XC anyway, so XC might as well get the extra staff now and start training them. XC will have some spare drivers.
Even if EMR wanted to use 221s tomorrow, it would take a good few months for them to enter service because of driver training.
That hasn't stopped units from ending up on diagrams they can't work, such as GWR 150s working Exeter to London, which had to be cut back to Reading due to being unable to work to London Paddington.

 

[Zomboid]

I doubt it would take "a good few months" to get drivers who are already familiar with 222s ready to drive 221s.

And there's no point getting XC staff trained on them because they already have the necessary competence.

 

[cactustwirly]

Removal of the Sheffield to London services is one option, as there are other services that still require a change to service the route. It is better to cut services that have alternatives than cut services that have no alternatives, like the Melton service, which could, in the worst case, be operated with an EMR regional unit just to allow a Corby to Oakham link.
The 221s will be going to XC anyway, so XC might as well get the extra staff now and start training them. XC will have some spare drivers.
Even if EMR wanted to use 221s tomorrow, it would take a good few months for them to enter service because of driver training.
That hasn't stopped units from ending up on diagrams they can't work, such as GWR 150s working Exeter to London, which had to be cut back to Reading due to being unable to work to London Paddington.

Melton is served by XC anyway not EMR

XC staff only sign Derby to Sheffield, so useless for a St Pancras service anyway
They barely have enough staff to run their own services

GWR 150s to Reading was a deliberate choice it wasn't accidental, they wouldn't normally operate for lots of reasons like staff training and the use of 75mph units on a 110mph railway

 

[D365]

It was a sad day when they got rid of the HST's.

For you, perhaps.

For anyone who cared to get a seat.

Liking the HSTs or not is indeed a very subjective view (some liked them, some didn’t); however when looking at the substance-over-style argument, they transported people along the MML with a good level of capacity.

Agree with the above two posts - I thought the point of the Speculative Discussion subforum was to be able to express opinions and ideas

I understand why EMR wanted to be rid of the HSTs. In theory, the Class 180 better suits their modus operandi. In practice however, the 180s were never popular at Etches Park, and for very good reason...

 

[Wolfie]

A railway user looking in to this wouldn't believe their eyes. It's very simple.

EMR have trains to run (most) of their services now. Keep them until the new trains are introduced.

Negotiate extended leases. Those responsible for late deliveries pay compensation to EMR to go to lessors. Part of that compensation moves down the chain to any company that has already signed contracts for future use of the trains, to include any company contracted for refurbishment work.

Any Open Access operator has no existing customers to upset. ScotRail's HST's are leased until 2030. Why should EMR and their long suffering customers have to take the hit when it's not their fault that their new trains are not yet fit for purpose?

All these cobbled together sticking plaster ideas are typical of MML in recent years. Just get on with electrification and introduction of the new trains PDQ. The legal profession can sort out the niceties of contracts. Possession is 9/10th's of the law

Hmmm.... A startling lack of awareness of contract law ...

 

[Iskra]

LSLs 2x HST sets

They aren’t going to want the common passenger on their highly prestigious first class dining sets.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Melton is served by XC anyway not EMR

XC staff only sign Derby to Sheffield, so useless for a St Pancras service anyway
They barely have enough staff to run their own services

GWR 150s to Reading was a deliberate choice it wasn't accidental, they wouldn't normally operate for lots of reasons like staff training and the use of 75mph units on a 110mph railway

XC don't do Corby to Melton do they?
That is why it would be cut at Derby with EMR running London to Derby section and XC doing Derby to Sheffield Section.

 

[Zomboid]

Hmmm.... A startling lack of awareness of contract law ...

Pretty much everything is negotiable in a contract for a price if all involved parties are willing to enter into a negotiation.

That doesn't mean that an agreement will be reached, but it's not as if it's impossible to try.

 

[43066]

I doubt it would take "a good few months" to get drivers who are already familiar with 222s ready to drive 221s.

And there's no point getting XC staff trained on them because they already have the necessary competence.

It would require a full traction course, is my understanding. The same will be required for 180s given how long ago they left, however…

Either way, quite a major undertaking. Last time round only Derby signed the 180s, which made things more straightforward.

 

[Killingworth]

Pretty much everything is negotiable in a contract for a price if all involved parties are willing to enter into a negotiation.

That doesn't mean that an agreement will be reached, but it's not as if it's impossible to try.

Which is the point I was making

All these speculative suggestions should be unnecessary if commonsense was applied.

Situations like this might be avoided if we had one train operating company that owned all the rolling stock - and new stock was delivered in full operational condition on time. Dream on.

 

[liamf656]

Removal of the Sheffield to London services is one option, as there are other services that still require a change to service the route. It is better to cut services that have alternatives than cut services that have no alternatives, like the Melton service, which could, in the worst case, be operated with an EMR regional unit just to allow a Corby to Oakham link.
The 221s will be going to XC anyway, so XC might as well get the extra staff now and start training them. XC will have some spare drivers.
Even if EMR wanted to use 221s tomorrow, it would take a good few months for them to enter service because of driver training.
That hasn't stopped units from ending up on diagrams they can't work, such as GWR 150s working Exeter to London, which had to be cut back to Reading due to being unable to work to London Paddington.

Removing Sheffield services would be a terrible move as it would overwhelm the Nottingham service and ruin EMR's reputation completely. Curtailing isn't a good enough option either, although cutting a fast Sheffield at Derby *may* just be okay. If anything it's the Melton extension that needs to go as it would impact a minority of people who will end up travelling via Leicester anyway

I'm not sure where you got the info of XC having all these spare trains and drivers from, as I can tell you there are a fleet of 221s that have just been made available from a cancelled Open Access application. So IF EMR wanted to use them, they're there.

A 150 working Exeter to Reading as one off isn't comparable to cutting an Intercity route in half as that would also upset the majority

 

[cactustwirly]

XC don't do Corby to Melton do they?
That is why it would be cut at Derby with EMR running London to Derby section and XC doing Derby to Sheffield Section.

EMR is a token service once a day for diversion knowledge. No one will miss it if it's removed
It's quicker to change at Leicester and Kettering

 

[43096]

LSLs 2x HST sets

How many more times does it have to be explained that slam door stock is not going to be authorised by the ORR for use on regular services?

They aren’t going to want the common passenger on their highly prestigious first class dining sets.

Fair point! That and they already have a use for them!

 

[Richard123]

Removing Sheffield services would be a terrible move as it would overwhelm the Nottingham service and ruin EMR's reputation completely. Curtailing isn't a good enough option either, although cutting a fast Sheffield at Derby *may* just be okay. If anything it's the Melton extension that needs to go as it would impact a minority of people who will end up travelling via Leicester anyway

I'm not sure where you got the info of XC having all these spare trains and drivers from, as I can tell you there are a fleet of 221s that have just been made available from a cancelled Open Access application. So IF EMR wanted to use them, they're there.

A 150 working Exeter to Reading as one off isn't comparable to cutting an Intercity route in half as that would also upset the majority

Interesting - which application?

I thought the 6 stored 221s were already available?

Hadn't heard of any operator securing a contract on them...

Only aware of (First's?) options for extra IEPs

 

[Energy]

Interesting - which application?

I thought the 6 stored 221s were already available?

Hadn't heard of any operator securing a contract on them...

Only aware of (First's?) options for extra IEPs

Alstom/WSMR were planning to use 221s. Their open-access application has been declined so securing a short lease should be possible.

 

[Richard123]

Alstom/WSMR were planning to use 221s. Their open-access application has been declined so securing a short lease should be possible.

But did they have an agreement/options signed?

I hadn't seen one, in which case they were available for any user...