First Group Sheffield - London via Retford open access proposal

[Energy]

Is this planned to be non-stop from KX to Retford? Or provide other journey opps (e.g. a faster Peterborough to Sheffield link than via Notts - or at Stevenage - where Luton/Bedford no longer exist - good for a Herts railhead opp)

With more stops, you run a higher risk of complaints from existing operators (LNER) that HT would be stealing their business between say Peterborough and London. HT should be able to get a good loading from Sheffield, despite its size it only gets 2tph from EMR, and 75% of journeys are done by car (according to FirstGroup) making it a good target for a Lumo-type open-access application.

Remember that Lumo only stops at Stevenage, Newcastle and Morpeth.

And the exact location the 22x comes from in the morning depends on the deal HT can make with potential maintainers but it will be in the North. No fixed view yet.

I'm guessing Hitachi's London depot is packed? (and wouldn't do 22x)

 

[CarrotPie]

With more stops, you run a higher risk of complaints from existing operators (LNER) that HT would be stealing their business between say Peterborough and London. HT should be able to get a good loading from Sheffield, despite its size it only gets 2tph from EMR, and 75% of journeys are done by car (according to FirstGroup) making it a good target for a Lumo-type open-access application.

Furthermore, Retford only gets an hourly service to London (which also stops several times along the way), so this will probably take a lot of the Retford-London business at the times these services run.

 

[Peterthegreat]

The source of the timings is me and as I wrote the application, they have to be accurate. They fit on the June 2024 timetable database and when the December 2024 database is made available, the work will be done again (by an experienced planner familiar with the “geography”) to make them fit - potential paths have already been identified.

As part of the industry consultation all the “F3” (detailed timetable) prints and any consequential minor flexes (and they are very minor) are being provided for all industry participants to go through and to show everyone that HT are approaching this very seriously, unlike some other OA aspirants.

ECS moves have been omitted - there is no way the unit will be sitting in Sheffield station for nearly two hours!

And yes, it is non stop Retford to the Cross and vice versa. No time for stops elsewhere.

Given there are northbound trains out of Sheffield at 09.15, 09.18 and 09.21 I don't see how how 09.20 would work.

 

[Nottingham59]

You know the two are so close together they might as well be one station, right?

Of course. But the ORR data analysts give separate flows to King's Cross and to St Pancras from Sheffield. And presumably they have a methodology for doing so.

(As they do from Nottingham. And I can well believe the Nottingham figures. The fastest train from London to Nottingham used to be the 1848h Hull trains from the Cross. And even now its just 1h48 that way, with a 14 minute wait at Grantham. A direct Nottingham service via ECML would beat the fastest direct service via MML.)

 

[Clarence Yard]

If you are looking for conflicts, you have to look at the June 2024 database, not the December 2023 actual timetable. There are differences at Sheffield, amongst other places. But if any train isn’t currently on the database, you run the risk of any conflict - that’s one of the purposes of the industry consultation, to tease these issues out.

In any event, the service will probably be timed in and out of Sheffield completely differently by the time June 2025 comes around, given the proposed December 2024 ECML recast.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Given there are northbound trains out of Sheffield at 09.15, 09.18 and 09.21 I don't see how how 09.20 would work.

Have you missed the comment Clarence Yard made about minor flexes to other operators to make this proposal work - looking at the current timetable there is a gap after the 09.21 departure so presumably some flexing of existing services is required here if they are indeed the same in the June 24 timetable CY refers to.

 

[AirRail]

I'd hazard a guess they'd operate under the Lumo brand for this. Unless ofcourse yet another brand is born, but Lumo would be the better choice.

 

[trainswitheddy]

If it's 222s then it'll be a bit full circle (forgetting the 170s of course)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'd hazard a guess they'd operate under the Lumo brand for this. Unless ofcourse yet another brand is born, but Lumo would be the better choice.

The press release says Hull Trains. Makes sense as both routes would serve Yorkshire (and Retford). Lumo serves Tyneside and Edinburgh, and is a budget operation. This new venture is described to be planned with competitive pricing, but not as a budget operator.

 

[CarrotPie]

I'd hazard a guess they'd operate under the Lumo brand for this. Unless ofcourse yet another brand is born, but Lumo would be the better choice.

Considering First said,

Lumo’s popularity and success has grown over the last two years, thanks to its low fare model and environmental credentials.

I doubt they'd want to be associated with diesel. Furthermore, Lumo's market is mainly Newcastle/Morpeth-Edinburgh, whereas HT's is (Hull-Doncaster)-London, so it'd be more in suiting with the latter's brand.

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't see what this adds but fair play to First.

It isn't any faster than EMR and is only 2tpd

 

[Basil Jet]

In the Up direction the proposed service will need to cross to Down ECML to the south of Retford - the crossover isn't even immediately at the end of the platforms so realistically each Up move will take up at least 2 Down paths, which may not be timetabled but are key for recovery.

Judging by Google Maps, the southbound service would use the northbound mainline for 160 metres.

 

[ChrisC]

My thoughts on seeing this was what happened to the pre-COVID semi-fast Lincoln<>Sheffield paths that have never returned?

Unfortunately I can’t see the Lincoln-Sheffield semi-fast returning any time soon. Lincoln really does need a faster service to Sheffield and if paths are limited between Sheffield and Retford I would rather that was the priority over a twice a day London train.

 

[gerryuk]

There seems to be plenty of land opposite the tram depot on the Sheffield Lincoln line, just before Woodburn Junction. Would that not be a good place to build a yard to service and store trains for Northern and TPE overnight? Once these London trains get to Sheffield, they could be sent there until they are needed to return to London.

 

[dk1]

Sounds good but I’m struggling to get my head around the interaction with the ECML at Retford. I fear that could be the major stumbling block to this plan.

 

[CarrotPie]

I don't see what this adds but fair play to First.

London services for the intermediate stations and potentially cheaper fares, plus service into KGX instead of STP, which could be useful in the event of disruption (feel free to poke holes in this, it's a throwaway comment).

 

[trainswitheddy]

If it is 22xs would it be 221 or 222? I've heard that the 222s are a bit tired interior-wise but will the Avanti 221s come off lease soon enough? (Especially since XC are due a few)

 

[dk1]

If it is 22xs would it be 221 or 222? I've heard that the 222s are a bit tired interior-wise but will the Avanti 221s come off lease soon enough? (Especially since XC are due a few)

The 222s are currently having seats recovered. Anything is possible with a refurb.

 

[jayah]

A flat crossing at Retford on the ECML which is only going to get busier cannot be the right use of capacity - I'm sure there is technical space but this is the two track section... I have family in Worksop and they do drive to Retford or Doncaster to pick up services, so there is something in that but I don't think this is the way to solve that problem.

The service at Retford High Level is typically 6tph each way.

As a result of constraints at Doncaster and closer to London, Retford is almost inevitably well below capacity.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Have you missed the comment Clarence Yard made about minor flexes to other operators to make this proposal work - looking at the current timetable there is a gap after the 09.21 departure so presumably some flexing of existing services is required here if they are indeed the same in the June 24 timetable CY refers to.

I have not missed it. However any changes to the 09.15 and 09.18 would not be minor (however there could of course be widespread changes envisaged). The 09.21 departure is a northbound cross country and would be difficult to flex without knock on alterations down line.

 

[DanNCL]

There’s a sub-fleet of 4x 222/1s they could consider. They could then claim that they ordered all their trains new, we can ignore that the 222s haven’t actually been there for more than half of their working lives!

 

[CarrotPie]

There’s a sub-fleet of 4x 222/1s they could consider. They could then claim that they ordered all their trains new, we can ignore that the 222s haven’t actually been there for more than half of their working lives!

I doubt that line would fly with passengers or the ASA!

 

[43066]

Clarence Yard has posted the times proposed times on wnxx...

Sheffield 0920 1654
Retford 1017 1739
Kings Cross 1144 1914

Kings Cross 1248 1956
Retford 1410 2117
Sheffield 1457 2156

Interesting to note it’s a little slower than EMR’s quickest timing, despite the MML’s generally lower linespeeds, because of all the fiddling around via Meadowhall to reach the ECML.

London services for the intermediate stations and potentially cheaper fares, plus service into KGX instead of STP, which could be useful in the event of disruption (feel free to poke holes in this, it's a throwaway comment).

It’s a very valid comment. More likely EMR will be in a position to accept this operator’s tickets than the other way around, though, given they’re only operating a few trains per day.

I think someone asked whether 22Xs could be fitted with ETCS. They do indeed have passive provision for ETCS in terms of space for the display on the desk, an isolation switch in the cab. However kitting them out with such would presumably be equivalent to a brand new install - I have no idea how much “pre wiring” as such, is present.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If the service does get the go-ahead, the need for ETCS will be obviated because the 22x units will be replaced with new or newer (ETCS fitted) units before the signalling switch off date, currently 2030.

 

[Fishandbananas]

Interesting to note it’s a little slower than EMR’s quickest timing, despite the MML’s generally lower linespeeds, because of all the fiddling around via Meadowhall to reach the ECML.

Where does it state via Meadowhall to reach the ECML? If I remember correctly the proposal wanted the train to go via Woodhouse and Worksop on the Lincoln line and joining the ECML at Retford.
Going via Meadowhall would require joining the ECML at Doncaster which is feasible but seems out of the way.

 

[cactustwirly]

Interesting to note it’s a little slower than EMR’s quickest timing, despite the MML’s generally lower linespeeds, because of all the fiddling around via Meadowhall to reach the ECML.



It’s a very valid comment. More likely EMR will be in a position to accept this operator’s tickets than the other way around, though, given they’re only operating a few trains per day.

I think someone asked whether 22Xs could be fitted with ETCS. They do indeed have passive provision for ETCS in terms of space for the display on the desk, an isolation switch in the cab. However kitting them out with such would presumably be equivalent to a brand new install - I have no idea how much “pre wiring” as such, is present.

The MML isn't that much slower, it's 110 mostly with sections of 125mph?
Whilst to reach the ECML it's a slow run via Worksop

 

[43066]

Where does it state via Meadowhall to reach the ECML? If I remember correctly the proposal wanted the train to go via Woodhouse and Worksop on the Lincoln line and joining the ECML at Retford.
Going via Meadowhall would require joining the ECML at Doncaster which is feasible but seems out of the way.

Apologies, I meant to say Woodhouse.

The MML isn't that much slower, it's 110 mostly with sections of 125mph?
Whilst to reach the ECML it's a slow run via Worksop

The ECML is almost all 125 AIUI. There’s a fair bit of >110 on the southern MML, but quite a few slower sections, notably Market Harborough (85), Kettering (95) and Wellingborough (80), 90 max between Chesterfield and Sheffield.

For this proposal it’s the slow run through the Sheffield ‘burbs that makes the difference.

 

[lyndhurst25]

There seems to be plenty of land opposite the tram depot on the Sheffield Lincoln line, just before Woodburn Junction. Would that not be a good place to build a yard to service and store trains for Northern and TPE overnight? Once these London trains get to Sheffield, they could be sent there until they are needed to return to London.

Which is pretty much what used to happen before HSTs were introduced on the Midland Mainline. See “Nunnery Carriage Sidings”.

I'd hazard a guess they'd operate under the Lumo brand for this. Unless ofcourse yet another brand is born, but Lumo would be the better choice.

With the trains running on diesel between Sheffield and Retford, what about “Fumo”?

 

[Trainguy34]

With the trains running on diesel between Sheffield and Retford, what about “Fumo”?

Or if the trains were quite long, Fee Fi Fo Fum(o)?

 

[RobShipway]

Which is pretty much what used to happen before HSTs were introduced on the Midland Mainline. See “Nunnery Carriage Sidings”.




With the trains running on diesel between Sheffield and Retford, what about “Fumo”?

The trains would be running on diesel all the way between Sheffield and London which is why it would be a 22x unit as @Clarence Yard has stated more than once. The class 803 Lumo units can only operate on OHLE and do not have enough capability on battery power to do the non OHLE parts of the route.