First Group Sheffield - London via Retford open access proposal

[Nottingham59]

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

It's slower north of Derby, and you have to slow right down to pass through Derby and Leicester. And Trent and Wellingborough.

Clarence Yard shows the 1956h from KGX taking 2 hours, which is as good as the fastest MML services.

 

[CarrotPie]

The trains would be running on diesel all the way between Sheffield and London which is why it would be a 22x unit

What's stopping it being a bi-mode, unless I've missed something?

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.

Nobody was suggesting 803s, because it's a silly idea. They don't even have traction capability from their batteries.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What's stopping it being a bi-mode, unless I've missed something?

In the long term, nothing, in the short term, Hull Trains are already using as many 802s as they can, so there's no bi-modes spare.

 

[CarrotPie]

In the long term, nothing, in the short term, Hull Trains are already using as many 802s as they can, so there's no bi-modes spare.

That's what I thought. 802s would be the obvious choice, but it'll take some time to get some built.

 

[43066]

Clarence Yard shows the 1956h from KGX taking 2 hours, which is as good as the fastest MML services.

Only that one, though. Most are slower, equivalent to the EMR semi fasts. Presumably this is to keep the service from becoming abstractive, albeit it appears the real target isn’t London - Sheffield, it’s the demand to the east of Sheffield, which currently drives to the ECML (or to railheads further south) when heading for London, for which end to end journeys will be shorter.

I do hope this can be made to work. It’s actually rather refreshing to see a proposal for a new business venture on the UK railway, despite all the current negativity surrounding the industry!

 

[D365]

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.

I think a joke was missed…

 

[Barnsley]

If it’s a 22x unit I imagine it’ll overnight in Crofton

If thats the case, I'd love it if they started the first and terminated the last at Barnsley!

 

[Iskra]

If it’s a 22x unit I imagine it’ll overnight in Crofton

Reportedly at capacity already, with XC units already being out-stabled at Holbeck depot currently.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

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.

A Quick Look just now at Network Rail’s Opertaional Rules on LN804 shows a 2 minute headway on the down leaving Sheffield for Nunnery Main Line Junction providing the trains are diverging there.

So it looks likes the 09.20 proposed for London follows the 09.18 Leeds service and the XC departure looks like it could be a minute later at 09.22. The impact would be non existent on the XC service as it has 1 minutes pathing approaching Wincobank Junction.

 

[YorksLad12]

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.

Yup. If the excellent Rail Map online (https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php) is to be believed, services would have to use P2 in both directions, crossing over south of the station (two crossings).

As for the discussion about rolling stock - someone pointed out upthread that only one unit would be needed to cover two return trips a day; on the Hull Trains thread in the Traction and Rolling Stock section of the forum, it is pointed out that only three of the five 802s are needed every day if nothing runs doubled up.

I suspect, therefore, that it will be one of the existing 802s running this Sheffield service - if it gets approved.

I can't see 22x or any significant diesel under wires proposal being approved, even if just two services per day.

Is there really any chance of this not being considered primarily abstractive?

Depends on where they call, I guess.

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.

The xx.15 and xx21 are tied together, so that the XC at xx.21 overtakes the xx.15 stopper at Rotherham (Masboro v Central) - the only point it can do so between Sheffield and Leeds. I've seen the 17.15 held at Sheffield until a delayed 17.21 is approaching, so that it can't get too far ahead.

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

Here's a thought. The first service of the day starts from Hull, runs to Sheffield and on to London. The last service ends at Hull. That gets them to Botanic Gardens for overnight servicing. That might be an ECS move anyway, but why not a revenue-earning service (and providing an extra trip between London and Hull, if a bit slower than the others)?

Anyway: good luck to them

 

[endofthetunnel]

Yup. If the excellent Rail Map online (https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php) is to be believed, services would have to use P2 in both directions, crossing over south of the station (two crossings).

The crossover from P2 (Down) to Up is immediately south of the station, within the same signal section as the starter signal from P1. North and southbound services would just both have to use the Down platform, which has plenty of free time currently, and there’s no long painful wrong line running or needs for 2x paths etc as has been suggested up thread (and as I’m sure Clarence Yard is aware!)

 

[Peterthegreat]

The crossover from P2 (Down) to Up is immediately south of the station, within the same signal section as the starter signal from P1. North and southbound services would just both have to use the Down platform, which has plenty of free time currently, and there’s no long painful wrong line running or needs for 2x paths etc as has been suggested up thread (and as I’m sure Clarence Yard is aware!)

Sorry I'm not sure what is being said here. The proposed service does not need to go south of the station (other than perhaps ECS movements) all movements are in an out of the north end.

 

[JD2168]

Yup. If the excellent Rail Map online (https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php) is to be believed, services would have to use P2 in both directions, crossing over south of the station (two crossings).

I can't see 22x or any significant diesel under wires proposal being approved, even if just two services per day.

Depends on where they call, I guess.

The xx.15 and xx21 are tied together, so that the XC at xx.21 overtakes the xx.15 stopper at Rotherham (Masboro v Central) - the only point it can do so between Sheffield and Leeds. I've seen the 17.15 held at Sheffield until a delayed 17.21 is approaching, so that it can't get too far ahead.



Here's a thought. The first service of the day starts from Hull, runs to Sheffield and on to London. The last service ends at Hull. That gets them to Botanic Gardens for overnight servicing. That might be an ECS move anyway, but why not a revenue-earning service (and providing an extra trip between London and Hull, if a bit slower than the others)?

Anyway: good luck to them

With regards the Leeds stopper it can’t wait to long at Rotherham Central as that would possibly start to impact the Tram Train service which can’t be too delayed as it is tight crossing over on High Street near Cathedral at Sheffield City Centre with regards the Blue & Yellow routes, one Tram Train runs only a few minutes ahead of a Yellow from Cathedral.

An interesting proposal by First, not using the First name is good as it does not have a good reputation in Sheffield with the buses. It would also possibly solve an issue seen recently where the EMR service can’t run through due to flooding which restricts the Sheffield to London connection to going via Doncaster & using the LNER service.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Sorry I'm not sure what is being said here. The proposed service does not need to go south of the station (other than perhaps ECS movements) all movements are in an out of the north end.

We’re talking about Retford, of which it definitely needs to go south

 

[cle]

They should go after Nottingham too, in a similar vein. I bet that would be far quicker.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Reportedly at capacity already, with XC units already being out-stabled at Holbeck depot currently.

Absolutely. The first XC off Leeds which used to be an HST off Neville Hill is now a voyager and is regularly late.

 

[Fishandbananas]

Should there still be paths out of Sheffield station say from when some EMR services extended to Leeds?

 

[43074]

They should go after Nottingham too, in a similar vein. I bet that would be far quicker.

Probably not much in it - a clear run would get to Grantham in the hour, then at least half an hour to Nottingham. Little better than the 1hr35 that the faster EMR service takes.

 

[YorksLad12]

With regards the Leeds stopper it can’t wait to long at Rotherham Central as that would possibly start to impact the Tram Train service which can’t be too delayed as it is tight crossing over on High Street near Cathedral at Sheffield City Centre with regards the Blue & Yellow routes, one Tram Train runs only a few minutes ahead of a Yellow from Cathedral.

Indeed. I have sometimes seen it waiting for the signal at Aldwarke (I think) northbound as we passed by on the XC service but that's usually with an on-time arrival/late departure from Sheffield rather than late arrival and departure.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I thought the north end of Sheffield was full?

Pathing across Nunnery Mainline Junction north of Sheffield Midland is at a premium so this will be interesting.

Briefly, pre-covid, the current 1x hourly each way Lincoln was supplemented by a 1x hourly each way Gainsborough service. As there appears to be no likelihood of that 2x per hour each way pattern returning (sadly) and given the overall service patterns elsewhere leaving Sheffield N via Nunnery are pretty much unchanged, it seems to me that there are at least 1x per hour each way spare paths at Nunnery.

 

[baz962]

Excellent Idea in principle. Though as one of the Sheffield signallers, Nunnery Mainline, and the North end of Sheffield in general, is a concern. The infrastructure struggles to maintain the current timetable as it is. Too many trains, not enough track, or platforms.

Only that one, though. Most are slower, equivalent to the EMR semi fasts. Presumably this is to keep the service from becoming abstractive, albeit it appears the real target isn’t London - Sheffield, it’s the demand to the east of Sheffield, which currently drives to the ECML (or to railheads further south) when heading for London, for which end to end journeys will be shorter.

I do hope this can be made to work. It’s actually rather refreshing to see a proposal for a new business venture on the UK railway, despite all the current negativity surrounding the industry!

Do you fancy a change

 

[AirRail]

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.

I was meaning the use as a brand name, not the use of their current rolling stock. Lumo is very generic, whereas Hull Trains is better associated with, well ultimately serving Hull.

 

[WAB]

I was meaning the use as a brand name, not the use of their current rolling stock. Lumo is very generic, whereas Hull Trains is better associated with, well ultimately serving Hull.

If @Clarence Yard says it won’t be branded as Lumo, then it won’t be branded as Lumo…

 

[MCR247]

I was meaning the use as a brand name, not the use of their current rolling stock. Lumo is very generic, whereas Hull Trains is better associated with, well ultimately serving Hull.

i think First Group would argue the opposite. According to them, parr of the success of the lumo brand is its low environmental impact, something which running a 22x under the wires definitely doesn’t align with. Hull trains serving Sheffield, however, isn’t that much a stretch. It’s not like their USP is strictly only serving Hull. If anything, they could probably come up with a funny little marketing package about now serving Sheffield - London too

 

[D365]

If anything, they could probably come up with a funny little marketing package about now serving Sheffield - London too

First Yorkshire Connect

 

[cle]

Probably not much in it - a clear run would get to Grantham in the hour, then at least half an hour to Nottingham. Little better than the 1hr35 that the faster EMR service takes.

Similar to this. One quick run on the ECML and a local pootle for 30 mins. Roughly similar journey time (ahem, much like a flight!) - and can compete on service, experience, branding, loyalty and price - much like an airline. Easy.

 

[dk1]

Trouble with going via Nottingham is that it looks purely as a revenue raid rather than offering direct journey opportunities to the likes of Worksop and Woodhouse which First claim is a major part of this plan.

 

[43074]

Similar to this. One quick run on the ECML and a local pootle for 30 mins. Roughly similar journey time (ahem, much like a flight!) - and can compete on service, experience, branding, loyalty and price - much like an airline. Easy.

To be fair, add a stop at Bingham and try and tap into the market which railheads to Newark and Grantham from that part of the world (the A46 is pretty nearby) and there are definitely parallels between the two.

 

[A S Leib]

Trouble with going via Nottingham is that it looks purely as a revenue raid rather than offering direct journey opportunities to the likes of Worksop and Woodhouse which First claim is a major part of this plan.

For Alfreton, Langley Mill, Ilkeston and Dronfield, St. Pancras is the seventh or eighth most common origin / destination; granted, it's not tonnes of passengers, but that's less of an issue if you're limiting it to two trains per day anyway.

That wouldn't be faster than ~02:40 though, so probably too slow to be competitive for London–Sheffield anyway.

 

[Helvellyn]

Good idea. ORR data seems to suggest that Sheffield-Kings Cross is the biggest passenger flow with no direct service. (Apparently with ~500 passengers daily; greater than the volume to St Pancras. Can that be right?) See railalefan's website here:
Labs - Flow Statistics - Overall (no direct service)

How much is that down to the fact that it's LNER that prices the "Any Permitted" fare and EMR price "via Chesterfield" - as in ORR data is assuming many purchasing the former will all go to/from KGX?