Will East Midlands Trains' Meridians and HST's be replaced when the franchise is renewed?

[70014IronDuke]

... (Although there was a named train "The Inter City" which ran from London to somewhere in the West Country, I think). ...

Paddington - Wolverhampton, I think - c 1960. Didn't last long, IIRC. The named train pre-dated the BR "Inter-City" branding. Indeed, ISTR the named train was dropped because of the move to BR branding.

EDIT - Hmm. Lasted a bit longer than I thought, according to Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inter-City

Doesn't mention anything about why the name was dropped. Possibly just an early example of the desire to avoid named 'super expresses' and indicate that the businessman could rely on a regular, reasonably fast hourly service.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Even if there are no delays in construction HS2 in 2033 is 15 years away. With delays it could be up 20 years in the future. If passenger numbers for rail travel continue to increase during the next 20 years as it has in the last 20, the MML to St Pancras will still require at least the curent level of service from Leicester southwards. Again allowing for the next 15 years of possible growth in passenger numbers, plus the inconvenience of changing trains at Toron, I think Nottingham and Derby will still require at least the current level of service. It’s only Chesterfield and Sheffield which will see a significant reduction in passenger numbers to St Pancras.

More or less my thoughts too on the future needs of the MML. I'll copy-paste this post to the one on St Pancras that I started yesterday, if I may. Saves me writing out the same thing

 

[cjmillsnun]

Really? How come then they have the name 'High Speed Trains' - is it a name that predated the Meridians and has stuck?

As other have said, yes.

HSTs entered into passenger service in 1976. At that time they were the only 125MPH capable train in passenger service.

Up until privatisation there were only 5 types of train that were 125 MPH or above that had been in passenger service in the UK and two of those were prototypes that had been withdrawn.

Class 252 (HST prototype)
Class 253/4 (HST)
Class 390 (APT Prototype)
Class 91/Mk4.
Class 373 (Eurostar TMST) - Never ran at 125 MPH on UK infrastructure in passenger service until privatisaton

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Class 390 (APT Prototype)

Class 370, surely, but that was the APT-P; the pre-production version. The prototype was the APT-E which as far as I know never received a class number?

 

[43096]

Class 370, surely, but that was the APT-P; the pre-production version. The prototype was the APT-E which as far as I know never received a class number?

Class 370 was APT-P, but I think you are confusing APT types.
APT-E was “Experimental”
APT-P was “Prototype”
APT-S would have been the production version (S for “Squadron”)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Ah, yes - it's just that virtually every bit of literature describes the E at the prototype...

 

[Chester1]

I suggested in another thread that the Corby EMU service should be a 801 with the door and seating layout of a 395 (doors at thirds, no first class but high quality standard seating). Also, a more powerful bi mode for the intercity services, so 2 new IET variants e.g. 803 and 804. Obviously 125mph EMUs would only make sense if the Bedford to St Pancras wires are upgraded and paths can be found. Using IETs for both would help to counter the critcism that stations south of Kettering will have a worse service than today. Newton Aycliffe runs out of work in April 2019 so an order be delivered relatively quickly if the government wants to sort this mess out. That is probably to much to expect!

 

[Intercity Exec]

The HSTs and Meridians are touted to be replaced on core London routes on MML as the whole point of running bi-modal trains is to use the wires as far as Kettering when they are installed and energised to reduce diesel use under wires. The Midland Mainline is somewhat different to the ECML and GWML, so the 800 series is not a viable option. EC and GW are 125mph under wires and then only 100mph max after the wires end. EC is essentially an electric railway, but important destinations are off this electrified route and need diesel in order to be served, although as these destinations are on secondary routes the train doesn't need a lot of diesel power to serve them. GW is slightly different, although the more powerful 802s to be used on the hillier railway in the SW are still only running at relatively slow speed. What is required for MML is a 125mph diesel train which can also use electricity, it is not ideal but the circumstances dictate it as only approximately half of the mainline railway will be electrified (if wires were extended to Derby, or at least East Midlands Parkway, an 800 series would make more sense as diesel wouldn't be needed over 100mph{except for EMP to Derby if that portion was not electrified}). To make a yet more powerful 800 series train would be possible, but really you would need every carriage diesel powered. The engines are due to run at 900hp, XC, WC and MML voyagers and meridians have had their 750hp engines detuned by at least 100hp and TPE it is 150-200hp reduction on the 185s as the fuel bills are too big. To run 9 car 800 series stock, as MML can only handle 240m trains, with engines on all vehicles will be even more expensive than now, and when on electric you have to carry all this engine (and associated equipment) and fuel weight around. The trains need to be fast as promises have been made for under 90 minutes to Nottingham and under 120 Minutes to Sheffield for express services so compromises can not really be made.

 

[Intercity Exec]

Onto the term HST - The HST is to this day still the fastest diesel train in the world having ran at 148.5 mph during mk4 SIG bogie testing. Comparing to a class 395, as someone did, the High Speed name is applied to these units in a way, as every one has "Southeastern High Speed" emblazoned on the side and is often referred to as a bullet train (which it isn't) and the Olympic Games style naming of Javelin has stuck, so why change it. The definition is clearer when considering km/h speeds, to describe a train as High Speed requires 200+km/h (125mph) top service speed, Very High Speed means 300+km/h (186mph) top service speed, whereas Ultra High Speed means 400+km/h (250mph) top service speed (none of the latter actually exist yet although HS2 was originally specified to be Ultra High Speed, however, this seems to have been edged back to 225mph currently).

For amusement, if you apply the same logic to line names it all becomes very confusing though, as HS1 would be Very High Speed 1, HS2 would be either Ultra High Speed 1 or Very High Speed 2 depending on the final decision of the top speed (and further, if initially 225mph is chosen and later gets increased to 250mph the name would need to be changed), and HS3 would be High Speed 1!!

 

[Chester1]

The HSTs and Meridians are touted to be replaced on core London routes on MML as the whole point of running bi-modal trains is to use the wires as far as Kettering when they are installed and energised to reduce diesel use under wires. The Midland Mainline is somewhat different to the ECML and GWML, so the 800 series is not a viable option. EC and GW are 125mph under wires and then only 100mph max after the wires end. EC is essentially an electric railway, but important destinations are off this electrified route and need diesel in order to be served, although as these destinations are on secondary routes the train doesn't need a lot of diesel power to serve them. GW is slightly different, although the more powerful 802s to be used on the hillier railway in the SW are still only running at relatively slow speed. What is required for MML is a 125mph diesel train which can also use electricity, it is not ideal but the circumstances dictate it as only approximately half of the mainline railway will be electrified (if wires were extended to Derby, or at least East Midlands Parkway, an 800 series would make more sense as diesel wouldn't be needed over 100mph{except for EMP to Derby if that portion was not electrified}). To make a yet more powerful 800 series train would be possible, but really you would need every carriage diesel powered. The engines are due to run at 900hp, XC, WC and MML voyagers and meridians have had their 750hp engines detuned by at least 100hp and TPE it is 150-200hp reduction on the 185s as the fuel bills are too big. To run 9 car 800 series stock, as MML can only handle 240m trains, with engines on all vehicles will be even more expensive than now, and when on electric you have to carry all this engine (and associated equipment) and fuel weight around. The trains need to be fast as promises have been made for under 90 minutes to Nottingham and under 120 Minutes to Sheffield for express services so compromises can not really be made.

The 800 series are the only contenders to run bi mode services on the MML, there is no chance of a manufacturer designing a brand new design for a small order. The timing targets where never viable once electrification was cancelled north of Kettering therefore compromises will have to be made. Its a question of how many stops will be removed and by how much the targets will be missed. I would guess that the bi modes will have the upgrated 802 engines (940hp) and one extra diesel engine per set. There is limited 125mph running north of Kettering therefore removing all stops south of Kettering and upgrading the wires should be enough to provide adequate journey times.

 

[edwin_m]

The other problem with 800s on the MML is the vehicle length. Two 5-car 222s can fit in St Pancras with a bit of extra length allowing them to be coupled and uncoupled in the platforms. But two 5-car 80x units would need about 20m more platform to do the same.

So it may be that an 80x solution ends up with all 10-car units, unless platforms can be extended at St Pancras (may be needed elsewhere too). A 10-car would be similar to the existing design with eight diesel engines and pantograph/transformers in both end cars but a 5-car would need design changes to put a diesel in one of the end cars so as to match the power:weight ratio. However 10-car would be over-provision on many off-peak workings.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Class 370, surely, but that was the APT-P; the pre-production version. The prototype was the APT-E which as far as I know never received a class number?

Apologies. You’re right.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The other problem with 800s on the MML is the vehicle length. Two 5-car 222s can fit in St Pancras with a bit of extra length allowing them to be coupled and uncoupled in the platforms. But two 5-car 80x units would need about 20m more platform to do the same.

So it may be that an 80x solution ends up with all 10-car units, unless platforms can be extended at St Pancras (may be needed elsewhere too). A 10-car would be similar to the existing design with eight diesel engines and pantograph/transformers in both end cars but a 5-car would need design changes to put a diesel in one of the end cars so as to match the power:weight ratio. However 10-car would be over-provision on many off-peak workings.

http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse docu...s/london north eastern sectional appendix.pdf

PDF Page 335 says that Platforms 1-4 are 260m/285yards long. It would be a tight squeeze but it looks like it could be done, just.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suggested in another thread that the Corby EMU service should be a 801 with the door and seating layout of a 395 (doors at thirds, no first class but high quality standard seating).

Surely that's just the 395 anyway. The 395 is already part of the same overall Hitachi family as the 80x, the AT300 series. They say as much on their own website:
http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/products/our-trains/at300-intercity-high-speed

 

[Mordac]

Surely that's just the 395 anyway. The 395 is already part of the same overall Hitachi family as the 80x, the AT300 series. They say as much on their own website:
http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/products/our-trains/at300-intercity-high-speed

395 is lacking a diesel engine though!

 

[Domh245]

395 is lacking a diesel engine though!

You shouldn't need a diesel engine to get to Corby! That said, I don't see why you would necessarily want an AT300 style train for those services, a slightly better specced commuter EMU should be more than enough.

 

[swt_passenger]

395 is lacking a diesel engine though!

The earlier post is specifically about Corby EMUs though?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Oh dear. I think the Meridians are passable but the HST is MILES better. Miles. better. If only some of the more callow members had some experience of what trains should be like.



.

I'm 51 and much prefer the Meridians. They're quicker, safer and the doors are easier to use. Right up my alley. Merry Christmas!

 

[RichmondCommu]

And of course there are no pesky draughts because someone has left the window open. Happy New Year!

 

[DarloRich]

@RichmondCommu - you are being silly now but as it is nearly Christmas i will let you off

 

[Rail Blues]

You shouldn't need a diesel engine to get to Corby! That said, I don't see why you would necessarily want an AT300 style train for those services, a slightly better specced commuter EMU should be more than enough.

I agree, a 395 type unit for Corby does seem complete overkill. It is a mid-distance commuter route for which a suitably specced Electrostar (or equivalent) is more than adequate

 

[tbtc]

I wonder if when new trains are ordered/in play, whether EMT (or whoever) will continue to run trains from Leeds to London or anywhere else.

Assuming that Neville Hill won't host the replacement fleet, I don't think there'll be any Leeds services from St Pancras Leicester etc (until CrayonistaRail introduce their Open Access service up the S&C anyhow...).

The nine coach 222s were ordered for that purpose, but that was in the days when Sheffield - Leeds only really had one service an hour better than the 1h10 stoppers via Castleford/ Dearne Valley.

Now, there's two semi-fast via Barnsley (okay, taking an hour to cover a route that's about forty miles as the crow flies isn't particularly fast, but these things are relative...

...plus there's be the two/three coach Northern Connect service (Nottingham - Bradford) before long that takes roughly as long as the hourly XC service, so I don't think there'll be so much room for a regular EMT service.

You could argue that an 802 each hour would be better than a 195, but...

Going back to the original question, it's likely that HSTs will be replaced. However I'd be surprised if Meridians are replaced

In these days where new stock is as cheap/cheaper than old (especially given that you don't need to have it away for months being upgraded to modern accessibility standards), I'd guess that they'll get one big fleet for the LDHS services - why keep two smallish fleets when you can get one bigger compatible fleet? The 222s are awkward lengths - they will find a home on XC.

The Government currently don't know what they'e doing next week let alone in 2033. A lot can change in the next fifteen years.

True - and lots of people want nationalisation (despite most of the industry problems being the fault of the Dft/ Civil Service/ Network Rail).

The other problem with 800s on the MML is the vehicle length. Two 5-car 222s can fit in St Pancras with a bit of extra length allowing them to be coupled and uncoupled in the platforms. But two 5-car 80x units would need about 20m more platform to do the same.

So it may be that an 80x solution ends up with all 10-car units, unless platforms can be extended at St Pancras (may be needed elsewhere too). A 10-car would be similar to the existing design with eight diesel engines and pantograph/transformers in both end cars but a 5-car would need design changes to put a diesel in one of the end cars so as to match the power:weight ratio. However 10-car would be over-provision on many off-peak workings.

The other issue is whether Beeston/ Long Eaton etc retain their current London service, and if so whether we need to keep relatively short trains on the MML. Could be a case of the tail wagging the dog?

I agree, a 395 type unit for Corby does seem complete overkill. It is a mid-distance commuter route for which a suitably specced Electrostar (or equivalent) is more than adequate

Rather than EMT ('s successor) having a small fleet of Electrostars (or equivalent), I'd give the Corby service to the GN franchise (depending on how TSGN is split, of course), since the same stock would be used on London - Cambridge/ Peterborough services.

 

[Chester1]

Electrostars have recently finished production but I know what you mean. The 395 has finished production therefore the base design would need to be a 801. A 9 coach set is 234m and would only be 6m shorter than a standard 12 x 20m set. I suggested an IET variant because it would counter the political backlash from remove stops on intercity services. I agree in terms of opperational needs it would be OTT.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm 51 and much prefer the Meridians. They're quicker, safer and the doors are easier to use. Right up my alley. Merry Christmas!

I far prefer the comfort of the HST. Infact, I'm sat on one right now !

(I'd still find them preferable, even if they had silly modern doors fitted).

 

[Bevan Price]

The Sectratary of State was very clear about his intentions to have bi-modes ordered for the Midland Main Line, despite the fact that it seems not to add up whatsoever. Ordering a diesel train with a 40 year lifespan? Are we really saying that there's going to be no wires for 40 years?

Politicians = Sense ? Dream On.

 

[Bevan Price]

Paddington - Wolverhampton, I think - c 1960. Didn't last long, IIRC. The named train pre-dated the BR "Inter-City" branding. Indeed, ISTR the named train was dropped because of the move to BR branding.

EDIT - Hmm. Lasted a bit longer than I thought, according to Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inter-City

Doesn't mention anything about why the name was dropped. Possibly just an early example of the desire to avoid named 'super expresses' and indicate that the businessman could rely on a regular, reasonably fast hourly service.

Paddington - Birmigham was effectively downgraded to a nearly "secondary status" from 1967, when Euston - Birmingham electrification was completed.

 

[Chester1]

As per usual people seem to think that transport policy is based on the desire to stop or turn back the clock! HSTs will most likely be scrapped soon, plug doors are much better than slam doors and the MML will change enormously in the next 16 years!

 

[Domh245]

Electrostars have recently finished production but I know what you mean. The 395 has finished production therefore the base design would need to be a 801. A 9 coach set is 234m and would only be 6m shorter than a standard 12 x 20m set. I suggested an IET variant because it would counter the political backlash from remove stops on intercity services. I agree in terms of opperational needs it would be OTT.

Does it need to be new (other than the fact that new stock is the easiest way to the DfT's heart) - Some of those off lease 379s would be perfectly sufficient, especially if they can be 110mph modded

 

[yorksrob]

As per usual people seem to think that transport policy is based on the desire to stop or turn back the clock! HSTs will most likely be scrapped soon, plug doors are much better than slam doors and the MML will change enormously in the next 16 years!

Tish and pish. The MML may well change enormously over the next 16 years, but it won't be for the better (speaking as someone who has used the main lines of Kent for the past 16 years and then some, and seen the change).

Keep the HST's for as long as possible and undertake whatever modification/deploy whatever argument necessary to make it happen as far as I'm concerned.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Paddington - Birmigham was effectively downgraded to a nearly "secondary status" from 1967, when Euston - Birmingham electrification was completed.

Yes, I know that. I was referring to "The Inter-City" train - which apparently began life in 1950, and carried the name until 1960, according to Wiki. I somehow thought it only lasted for 1-2 years.