If you took over East Midlands Trains, what would you do?

[ashworth]

I fully approve of this.

Derby-Nottingham has a pretty poor service for two cities so close together, and locals pack out the long-distance Cardiff train instead much to the annoyance of people travelling beyond Burton.

If the Derby-Nottingham branch could be quadroupled, a 4tph or 6tph local service between Derby and Nottingham calling at all stations, including opening up a few new ones such as Nottingham University/QMC, Borrowash, Draycott, Long Eaton East etc, could give commuters a decent service that would see a big switch from car to train, as well as freeing up capacity on expresses.

Derby to Crewe really does need extending as far as Nottingham. Very inconvenient when travelling from Nottingham to anywhere in the North West or North Wales to have to additionally change at Derby. This would provide an extra train each hour between Nottingham and Derby or even allow a Nottingham to Birmingham train to run via Castle Donnington and avoid Derby for a much needed speed up of journeys between Nottingham and Birmingham.

Has anything at all been done to try and raise the speeds around Trent Junction especially at the Long Eaton end. The slow speeds on that part of the journey between Nottingham and Derby used to irritate me 40 years ago when I used to do the journey regularly to college in Derby by old DMU. It doesn’t seem any faster now than it was then!

Journey times from Nottingham to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and many other major cities are quite slow considering the distances involved in comparison to the distance to London. HS2 may help but that’s still a long time in the future. Many journeys are actually quicker by road.

 

[WideRanger]

I fully approve of this.

Derby-Nottingham has a pretty poor service for two cities so close together, and locals pack out the long-distance Cardiff train instead much to the annoyance of people travelling beyond Burton.

If the Derby-Nottingham branch could be quadroupled, a 4tph or 6tph local service between Derby and Nottingham calling at all stations, including opening up a few new ones such as Nottingham University/QMC, Borrowash, Draycott, Long Eaton East etc, could give commuters a decent service that would see a big switch from car to train, as well as freeing up capacity on expresses.

I have always thought the Cardiff - Nottingham Expresses should be diverted direct from Burton to Trent, avoiding Derby, and then have the Derby - Nottingham Service made 2tph using Crewe and Matlock services. If necessary, introducing a train shuttling between Derby and Burton, to keep sufficient capacity between the two. Such a service could possibly include extra local stops if there was a market. Then in a sunny future, extend the Derby-Burton services to Coalville.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Again if money was no object the ideal scenario would be to put Corby onto the Thameslink route every 30 minutes using those lovely new tracks they're building and at peak times have that as this new 'Bedford to St Pancras fast' or even a through Thameslink train to give more capacity on East Mids.

I wouldn't mind a Thameslink Bedford-Kettering connecting there for further north

 

[43074]

I have always thought the Cardiff - Nottingham Expresses should be diverted direct from Burton to Trent, avoiding Derby, and then have the Derby - Nottingham Service made 2tph using Crewe and Matlock services. If necessary, introducing a train shuttling between Derby and Burton, to keep sufficient capacity between the two. Such a service could possibly include extra local stops if there was a market. Then in a sunny future, extend the Derby-Burton services to Coalville.

Doesn't solve anything, and with the state of the Castle Donington line as it's probably as quick (or even faster) going via Derby anyway. It's too big a place to skip and there's no satisfactory replacement. Also 3tph is needed between Derby and Nottingham: when it was 2tph overcrowding was pretty common, and it still is a problem with 3tph.

 

[A0]

As someone who thinks rail connections to airports is vital, and to discourage people off the road I would like to see (including renaming of East Midlands Parkway to East Midlands Airport Parkway):

Intercity Services:
1ph London, Luton Airport Parkway, Leicester, East Midlands Airport Parkway, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield
1ph London, Luton Airport Parkway, Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Airport Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield
1ph London, Luton Airport Parkway, Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Airport Parkway, Beeston, Nottingham
1ph London, Luton Airport Parkway, Leicester, East Midlands Airport Parkway, Nottingham
1ph London, Luton Airport Parkway, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester

Local Services:
1ph Crewe - Derby extended to Nottingham (via Toton HS2 once opened) and maybe Skegness
New 1ph Crewe - Sheffield calling at all stations including Peartree

Care to explain how a 50% service reduction at Wellingborough and Kettering and seemingly a 100% reduction at Market Harborough will help to "discourage people off the road".....?

 

[Confused147]

I'd extend the London St.Pancras to Sheffield into Manchester Picc like they did in the early 2000s and send the Liverpool to Norwich into the hands of XC

 

[B&I]

Another thing that could be done, which would avoid reversing at Sheffield, would be to run Norwich bound services via Darnall and Barrow Hill. This would ease congestion south of Sheffield and decrease journey times. The limited services which call at Dronfield could be retained, also maintaining route knowledge.

Lateral thinking (quite literally). How much longer would that routing take, and how would it compare to the time penalty from changing ends at Sheffield?

 

[B&I]

I fully approve of this.

Derby-Nottingham has a pretty poor service for two cities so close together, and locals pack out the long-distance Cardiff train instead much to the annoyance of people travelling beyond Burton.

If the Derby-Nottingham branch could be quadroupled, a 4tph or 6tph local service between Derby and Nottingham calling at all stations, including opening up a few new ones such as Nottingham University/QMC, Borrowash, Draycott, Long Eaton East etc, could give commuters a decent service that would see a big switch from car to train, as well as freeing up capacity on expresses.

Eventually, post-electrification and other capacity improvements, an East Midlands Metro covering local services between and around Derby, Nottingham and Leicester?

 

[DarloRich]

I have always thought the Cardiff - Nottingham Expresses should be diverted direct from Burton to Trent, avoiding Derby, and then have the Derby - Nottingham Service made 2tph using Crewe and Matlock services. If necessary, introducing a train shuttling between Derby and Burton, to keep sufficient capacity between the two. Such a service could possibly include extra local stops if there was a market. Then in a sunny future, extend the Derby-Burton services to Coalville.

why would you chop out a major revenue & connectivity point for no real reason?

 

[Domh245]

Another thing that could be done, which would avoid reversing at Sheffield, would be to run Norwich bound services via Darnall and Barrow Hill. This would ease congestion south of Sheffield and decrease journey times. The limited services which call at Dronfield could be retained, also maintaining route knowledge.

If you wanted to avoid Sheffield, the sensible thing to do would just be to route the trains straight onto the Hope Valley lines at Dore South Junction, rather than some magical mystery tour. It'd also be the quickest route.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'd extend the London St.Pancras to Sheffield into Manchester Picc like they did in the early 2000s and send the Liverpool to Norwich into the hands of XC

The one problem with that is that "Project Rio" (as was) replaced the Nottingham semi-fast services between St Pancras and Leicester (still calling at Luton, Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough), then ran via the Erewash Valley line, rejoining the MML at Clay Cross, and then taking Dore South Curve to join the Hope Valley Line.

As such, services bypassed both Derby and Sheffield, with running times of 1.5 hours from St Pancras to Leicester, a further 1.5 hours on to Stockport, and about 15 minutes from Stockport to Piccadilly, for an end to end time of around 3 hours 15 minutes. Meanwhile, a fast train to Sheffield and TPE thence to Manchester takes 3 hours 5 minutes.

 

[MG11]

If you wanted to avoid Sheffield, the sensible thing to do would just be to route the trains straight onto the Hope Valley lines at Dore South Junction, rather than some magical mystery tour. It'd also be the quickest route.

Huh?
I never said avoid Sheffield....I said the trains could run via Darnall, which would mean running through Sheffield and continuing in the same direction, in lieu of reversing.

 

[Mitch in Notts]

Something that has not been suggested anywhere I've seen before. Years ago a day trip Nottingham to Llandudno involved a change at Crewe. Now seems to involve a change at Derby, Crewe & often at Chester or via Manchester (which seems mad going that far north to go back south). So how about Nottingham to Chester through trains via Derby & Crewe.......

 

[Rob F]

The one problem with that is that "Project Rio" (as was) replaced the Nottingham semi-fast services between St Pancras and Leicester (still calling at Luton, Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough), then ran via the Erewash Valley line, rejoining the MML at Clay Cross, and then taking Dore South Curve to join the Hope Valley Line.

As such, services bypassed both Derby and Sheffield, with running times of 1.5 hours from St Pancras to Leicester, a further 1.5 hours on to Stockport, and about 15 minutes from Stockport to Piccadilly, for an end to end time of around 3 hours 15 minutes. Meanwhile, a fast train to Sheffield and TPE thence to Manchester takes 3 hours 5 minutes.

The Erewash Valley line IS the MML!

Rob

 

[fowler9]

Something that has not been suggested anywhere I've seen before. Years ago a day trip Nottingham to Llandudno involved a change at Crewe. Now seems to involve a change at Derby, Crewe & often at Chester or via Manchester (which seems mad going that far north to go back south). So how about Nottingham to Chester through trains via Derby & Crewe.......

I'm guessing the day trip market from Nottingham to Llandudno isn't that big these days and isn't entirely down to the number of changes.

 

[Kettledrum]

If you took over East Midlands Trains, just like any company, you'd have to look at what you could do to either:

- reduce expenditure
- increase income

Ideally both.

On the expenditure side, some of the existing rolling stock is expensive in terms of track access charges, fuel usage and lease charges. HSTs particularly so. That's partly the reason there has been a flurry of new orders for new rolling stock on other franchises that have been renewed recently (South West Railway apart). New shiny stock would also have a potential benefit of helping to attract more passengers, particularly on Liverpool to Norwich, and Derby to Crewe - as long as the new trains are long enough with sufficient seats to actually attract new passengers.

Reducing expenditure by cutting services or seats must not happen. It is shortsighted and downright foolish. It annoys passengers and limits your capacity to expand services. How many people must choose to travel by car and not use XC trains for this reason? You may gain very short term profits, but in the medium to long term you loose out.

On the income side:

I'd review car parking spaces at all stations managed by EMT. to see where additional spaces could be provided at what cost. It's not about increasing car parking charges, but making more spaces for passengers to park, growing passenger revenue and car parking income.

I'd look at what additional services could be provided that might attract more passengers, particularly using some of the new stock. Direct trains to London from Mansfield, Burton on Trent and Melton Mowbray could all be introduced, but you'd have to market them very aggressively so you weren't burning £10 notes on a wood burning stove (as Chiefplanner says). Ilkeston, Matlock and and Alfreton are also markets to tap into more.

Joining trains on these new services with existing services and running services with 2 x 5 car units would make best use of limited paths and platforms at St Pancras. I'd use Derby, Nottingham and Corby to join trains together.

All the income options involve making investments and taking risks. That's what happens in private business, but if the train operating companies are not prepared to do this, it does rather beg the question, "what's the point of rail franchising?"

 

[Mitch in Notts]

I'm guessing the day trip market from Nottingham to Llandudno isn't that big these days and isn't entirely down to the number of changes.

No, but there is more than Llandudno in North Wales!

 

[MG11]

No, but there is more than Llandudno in North Wales!

Your suggestion of Chester would certainly be worthy of consideration. It's reasonable in size and does attract tourism, I expect there would be through passengers from Nott'm, plus people travelling from places like Kidsgrove who want a taste of city life.

 

[ashworth]

Before the Windsor Link was opened, joining the rail routes north and south of Manchester, changing at Crewe from Nottingham was often the easiest and quickest route to destinations in the North West and Scotland. The only other alternative was crossing Manchester from Piccadilly to Victoria. Perhaps if a through train was restored from Nottingham to Crewe, with good connections into services up the WCML, some of the overcrowding on trains from Nottingham to Manchester could be reduced.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Extending the Derby to Crewe route to Chester would be sensible based on the large numbers of tickets going through, even through to Llandudno might be a sensible addition but would probably just provide wasted capacity.

In terms of Mansfield to London, the number of tickets per train are relatively few and regularly zero. All of the platforms are 3 cars except Mansfield Town, and the only place you'd be able to reverse a train longer than 3 cars would be Shirebrook or Worksop, which is a massive waste of resources on what is a steady route in the middle of the day. Running through from Matlock, Lincoln, Burton and Barnsley are where I'd hedge my bets, but generally only on the basis of providing extra peak capacity into Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Care to explain how a 50% service reduction at Wellingborough and Kettering and seemingly a 100% reduction at Market Harborough will help to "discourage people off the road".....?

Well played. I wasn't hugely impressed by those that re-wrote the timetable and stopping patterns against some perceived "need of the EMT user", reducing Mkt Harborough to hourly or eliminating it entirely? This is despite it having >98% of the entries/exits as Newark North Gate - should we halve the service there too? Or close it completely? For those that haven't been keeping up, the 16/17 usage for 3 stations A0wen mentioned is about 900k for MHR, 1000k for WEL and 1100k for KET. Local plans mean all 3 are likely to continue to grow.

It reinforced my impression that some contributors fall back on cognitive biases or prejudices about who is using the railway, or worse, "who a train service is for". On various MML threads, this manifests itself in the idea that long-distance services should not be used by commuters, because they're... err... not for commuting on? That it's fine for a Bedford commuter to stand as far as Bedford, but totally unacceptable for a Sheffield-based businessman to... err.. stand as far as Bedford? Or that because it *might* look operationally convenient hundreds of commuters from Wellingborough or Corby should get transferred to Thameslink services. Sure, they'll be ecstatic for for a 15 minute slower journey on less comfortable trains with no catering. Even British Gas wouldn't try to pull a customer dis-service stunt like that. The idea that this kind of action is actually desirable for the railways in the 21st century should make us all shudder.

In product/service development - which is partly what this thread is about - the first thing to do is to accept that you have a limited view and a bring a shedload of your own cognitive biases and prejudices with you. Ignorance or misunderstanding of what customers want and value are the reason many new products/services fail, whether it's a train service or £500 internet-connected juicer, and methods like Design Thinking are used to avoid screw-ups like Juicero (Google it, it's a great story).

So perhaps the first thing I'd be doing is a lot of customer research (qual & quant market research, data analytics) to identify people's claimed and revealed needs and wants. Plus make sure that customer contact wasn't limited to customer-facing colleagues. The experience at my company is that everybody benefits from sitting in on focus groups, and finding out what really matters to customers.

If you took over East Midlands Trains, just like any company, you'd have to look at what you could do to either:

- reduce expenditure
- increase income

Ideally both.

This post had good ideas. Recognising my own ignorance to the wider issues across EMT, I'm reduced to a focus group of 1, who humbly suggests the following improvements for Market Harborough, beyond what can and should be solved by the current rebuild project.

1. Reduce car-parking costs once you have 500 spaces to fill. 12 quid a day? Seriously?
2. Implement e-ticketing and/or install more ticket machines
3. Create a carnet/season-ticket-like product that meet the needs of the more flexible worker that is maybe travelling to London 2-4 days/week
4. Aim to make travelling from Luton Airport as seamless as possible. Stop the 1C01 at MH at about 0450, connecting with early flights from Luton via LAP (and early E* in London). I think there is room for a special ticket product in connection with flights from Luton. Could be done via an e-voucher, perhaps bundling in Priority Lane at Luton Airport.
5. Reduce connection times at Leicester onto XC, and ideally accelerate the 40mph trundle from Leicester to BNS. The basic aim here is to improve commutability into Birmingham, which is lousy. People are talking seriously about London-Leicester in the same time, which is more than twice the distance of Leicester to Birmingham!
6. Rejig the timetable with direct services from MH to Derby/Sheffield, and avoid the 45 minute gap between XX29 and XY15 from London
7. Have the 1C92 (0819 from MH) run fast-line from Kettering to Bedford (saving 15-20 minutes), giving an 0930 arrival which facilitates 10am meeting starts in London. It's a particular bugbear of mine which, having just checked, might be resolved from May!

If you suddenly give me £Gazillions, then of course I'd be electrifying, doing a gold-plated Wigston-Syston enhancement, grade separating everything in sight and probably having the Victoria line moved closer to the domestic platforms at St Pancras.

 

[_toommm_]

I'd say get rid of the 153s and the 156s - they're really showing their age and are not suitable for EMTs current routes. Cascade the 158s from the Norwich to Liverpool route down to the more local routes, and acquire some more suitable stock for this route - even a set of 2x158s isn't enough for this route.

 

[DarloRich]

If you took over East Midlands Trains, just like any company, you'd have to look at what you could do to either:

- reduce expenditure
- increase income

Ideally both.

On the expenditure side, some of the existing rolling stock is expensive in terms of track access charges, fuel usage and lease charges. HSTs particularly so. That's partly the reason there has been a flurry of new orders for new rolling stock on other franchises that have been renewed recently (South West Railway apart). New shiny stock would also have a potential benefit of helping to attract more passengers, particularly on Liverpool to Norwich, and Derby to Crewe - as long as the new trains are long enough with sufficient seats to actually attract new passengers.

Reducing expenditure by cutting services or seats must not happen. It is shortsighted and downright foolish. It annoys passengers and limits your capacity to expand services. How many people must choose to travel by car and not use XC trains for this reason? You may gain very short term profits, but in the medium to long term you loose out.

On the income side:

I'd review car parking spaces at all stations managed by EMT. to see where additional spaces could be provided at what cost. It's not about increasing car parking charges, but making more spaces for passengers to park, growing passenger revenue and car parking income.

I'd look at what additional services could be provided that might attract more passengers, particularly using some of the new stock. Direct trains to London from Mansfield, Burton on Trent and Melton Mowbray could all be introduced, but you'd have to market them very aggressively so you weren't burning £10 notes on a wood burning stove (as Chiefplanner says). Ilkeston, Matlock and and Alfreton are also markets to tap into more.

Joining trains on these new services with existing services and running services with 2 x 5 car units would make best use of limited paths and platforms at St Pancras. I'd use Derby, Nottingham and Corby to join trains together.

All the income options involve making investments and taking risks. That's what happens in private business, but if the train operating companies are not prepared to do this, it does rather beg the question, "what's the point of rail franchising?"

Very sensible and rational ideas. Exactly what we don't want here. What we want are foaming crayonista wibble fests suggesting joining up two stations drawn form the RUK random station generator coupled with buying unspecified more suitbale rolling stock

Taking on board the access charges point i would look to move the HST to other routes if a new regional DMU order was not backed by our governmental overlords. There is still life in them and they would offer an increase in comfort and standards on, say, the Norwich runs.

The car parking is a good example of something often overlooked but it is something the TOC's have hit on as a cash generation scheme. Car parking spaces need to be sported out and prices reduced.

 

[MG11]

Taking on board the access charges point i would look to move the HST to other routes if a new regional DMU order was not backed by our governmental overlords. There is still life in them and they would offer an increase in comfort and standards on, say, the Norwich runs.

.

HSTs could not keep to the timings of a 158, given the amount of stop-starting. The early/morning late night services which call at stations on the Hope Valley (very steep gradient) would certainly be a challenge. Reversing Sheffield and Ely would also add to the journey times as well! Busy as it may be, 7 coaches aren't needed for this route either.

 

[DarloRich]

HSTs could not keep to the timings of a 158, given the amount of stop-starting. The early/morning late night services which call at stations on the Hope Valley (very steep gradient) would certainly be a challenge. Reversing Sheffield and Ely would also add to the journey times as well! Busy as it may be, 7 coaches aren't needed for this route either.

it wouldn't be a challenge other than infrastructure. It may perhaps require some kind of door lock out system but that is fairly common. HST don't have to run a s7 carriage. Just make them smaller

 

[unlevel42]

Opening out the north end cuttings and tunnels and removal of unnecessary bridges at Sheffield should be done now as much of the land needed is undeveloped. The majority of the section is already capable of three tracks.
Because Dore can never have a decent sized car park the alternative of Carparkway stations at Nunnery and Woodhouse or Waverley for morning and evening calls for services to London and Birmingham -perhaps even Leeds via Rotherham Central.
Nunnery also has access to the tram.

 

[jhy44]

why would you chop out a major revenue & connectivity point for no real reason?

XC already have 2tph Derby - Birmingham, which are much faster than the Nottingham train, often timed close together so I doubt they'd lose much revenue.

Connectivity point for whom? Any proposed diversion would be dependent on a new local service taking over the Nottingham-Derby/Burton stretch and the extension of the Crewe service to Nottingham, so no one loses out on connectivity.

At the moment it's faster and easier to drive to Nottingham from Birmingham than it is to take the train, there are lots of commuters like me who do that journey every day and choose to drive for that reason, were Derby to be missed out, and were that to speed up journey times (obviously would need serious infrastructure upgrades), and were that to eliminate the Notts-Derby crowds which mean you often don't get a seat at Nottingham due to the Sardine-can conditions, then I think it's fair to say there would be a large switch from car to train, increasing revenues.

 

[DarloRich]

XC already have 2tph Derby - Birmingham, which are much faster than the Nottingham train, often timed close together so I doubt they'd lose much revenue.

Really? Your idea is to condense 3 trains worth of passengers on to 2 already crowded trains to give the people of Nottingham a slightly faster service.

Connectivity point for whom? Any proposed diversion would be dependent on a new local service taking over the Nottingham-Derby/Burton stretch and the extension of the Crewe service to Nottingham, so no one loses out on connectivity.

Really? You cant work out why Derby might be a convenient interchange point? Are you sure about that? have you thought that there are more people using those trains than only passengers to Derby or Nottingham. The issue isnt the local stopper. The issue is long distance passengers.

XC arent going to miss Derby out. It offers them more revenue and better connections to the wider network than serving Nottingham with a faster train. How, for instance do you pose to accommodate any passengers form SW of Birmingham wishing to go to Derby or points north?

At the moment it's faster and easier to drive to Nottingham from Birmingham than it is to take the train, there are lots of commuters like me who do that journey every day and choose to drive for that reason, were Derby to be missed out, and were that to speed up journey times (obviously would need serious infrastructure upgrades), and were that to eliminate the Notts-Derby crowds which mean you often don't get a seat at Nottingham due to the Sardine-can conditions, then I think it's fair to say there would be a large switch from car to train, increasing revenues.

Got you - your argument is that the suggested idea suits your needs and everyone else can go hang.

I would absolutely agree the Nottingham ( and Leicester ) services from Brum need longer trains. The current ones are far too small. Personally I would suggest that longer trains mean more chance of seat making the journey time less of an issue

 

[B&I]

Post-HS2, there could be 2 regional services picking up snaller stations and flows HS2 won't cater for - 1 via Derby to Sheffield, 1 via Nottingham and Lincoln to Cleethorpes.

 

[DarloRich]

the phrase "post HS2" seem to open up all kinds of service suggestions