My ideas for the East Midlands franchise

[Manchester77]

They couldn't even be bothered to change the grotty handles own the top of the seats. LM did and it makes the train look considerably better by having handles that match the seat covers

Ok they're a dark blue but really? EMT have improved the 153s significantly. The new moquette combined with the lighter floor and better lights improves passenger experience and makes the train lighter and more attractive to use. They've pretty much done what LM have except its in EMT branding and the seat back handles are blue. I'd rather have an EMT 153 with blue handles than my local 142 complete with lovely bus bench seats and bouncey ride

 

[Qwerty133]

Ok, I don't know about the first (was this at a station?), but the second sounds like someone doing the best with the information he's been given (never assume - for all he and you knew, the plan could have been to shunt the unit elsewhere or use it for another service!), the third sounds like he was taking a sensible approach to accommodate everyone and the fourth sounds entirely correct. Judging a whole TOC's staff on the actions of four of them hardly sounds convincing anyway.

At derby station however other end of train to guard.
I regally use the 17:16 and due to 2 incoming services coupling to form it means shunting it away wouldn't really be an option as would need time to couple and could get the units 1x3and 1x2 car the wrong way round also the xx16 stock couldn't be swapped as it is the only terminating xc service at Leicester

 

[Tomnick]

I understand from comments elsewhere that the set for the xx16 is sometimes used to restart a.late-runner ex Stansted right time from Leicester, with the delayed train then taking the path of the xx16. I'm sure that wasn't the case on this occasion, but things aren't always what they seem!

 

[Whistler40145]

Does anyone know if paths are available from Leicester via Oakham & Corby to Kettering?

Also, can trains depart from Corby towards Oakham?

 

[Qwerty133]

I understand from comments elsewhere that the set for the xx16 is sometimes used to restart a.late-runner ex Stansted right time from Leicester, with the delayed train then taking the path of the xx16. I'm sure that wasn't the case on this occasion, but things aren't always what they seem!

I've just remembered that I forgot to add that the staff on the 16:50 arrival finish when they arrive at Leicester so they wouldn't have been a driver to move the train. And as I was waiting for 17:16 I can confirm that the train and the 17:06 arrival coupled to form the 17:16

 

[Tomnick]

Possibly the paths there, and definitely the ability to depart north from Corby. Really doubt there's any meaningful demand for a regular service though!

 

[trentside]

Ok, I don't know about the first (was this at a station?), but the second sounds like someone doing the best with the information he's been given (never assume - for all he and you knew, the plan could have been to shunt the unit elsewhere or use it for another service!), the third sounds like he was taking a sensible approach to accommodate everyone and the fourth sounds entirely correct. Judging a whole TOC's staff on the actions of four of them hardly sounds convincing anyway.

Edit - above is in response to Qwerty's post above. Currently (funnily enough) on a clean EMT train to Leeds with decent traincrew, and my phone's not cooperating!)

To me, the first two scenarios sound like staff being told how to do their job by a member of the public and the response I'd expect in those circumstances. In the case of the platform staff, it may surprise Qwerty133 that station staff often don't have any more of a clue than the public about last minute platform changes - sometimes you'll get a radio message and others you'll be asked to clarify something by a member of the public only to find the information being displayed has totally changed from what it was previously.

The last two situations sound completely appropriate. With the bikes, the TM used their discretion rather than leaving passengers on the platform - it saved unnecessary aggregation for all. I'm sure if Qwerty133 had been one of the bike passengers and had been turned away the situation would have been described very differently.

As Tomnick says, judging the whole of a TOCs staff on the experiences of four is hardly convincing, and is worse as it sounds to me like the staff did nothing wrong.

 

[Tomnick]

I've just remembered that I forgot to add that the staff on the 16:50 arrival finish when they arrive at Leicester so they wouldn't have been a driver to move the train. And as I was waiting for 17:16 I can confirm that the train and the 17:06 arrival coupled to form the 17:16

As I say, I'm sure that you were proved right on this occasion. Telling staff that they're wrong, especially if you're not too subtle about it, is never likely to result in a favourable response, and I'd never expect them to tell punters anything other than what they've been told to be currently correct (even if it later changes), no matter how much interfering enthusiasts suggest otherwise.

 

[tbtc]

Freeing up 222s to go on liv to not which in turn frees up 158s for Crewe/Matlock which then frees up a 153 for corby

222s on the Liverpool - Norwich?

A four coach 222 would mean fewer seats between Liverpool and Nottingham. But a five coach 222 on Liverpool - Norwich would mean some London - Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield services had to be run by shorter trains to make up for it.

There are no easy fixes, sorry.

 

[Kneedown]

222s on the Liverpool - Norwich?

A four coach 222 would mean fewer seats between Liverpool and Nottingham. But a five coach 222 on Liverpool - Norwich would mean some London - Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield services had to be run by shorter trains to make up for it.

There are no easy fixes, sorry.

Seats are not the problem these days, luggage capacity is. EMT went for the Ryanair approach of shoehorning as many seats as possible into the 158's and so there is less luggage capacity than before. It's a myth that the vast majority of passengers only commute short distances, as anyone who has tripped over/slalomed round the piles of suitcases stacked in the vestibules and aisles will tell you.
What EMT should've done is kept the original number of seats or even taken a couple out, whilst increasing the train length to four coaches. There would still have been plenty of botty spaces, plus lots of lovely luggage room.
222's, if they became available, would be ideal. One or two are available at weekends, maintenance permitting, and it's a shame they aren't utilised on the route as more services are only diagrammed two coaches on Saturdays when the route is just as busy, if not more so.

 

[W230]

I think splitting services at Nottingham makes sense. I think, however, that trains should only go to Norwich every other hour and so serve a place like bury st Edmunds or Cambridge.

Whenever i've taken this train it's been heaving at Norwich and then has seen the masses pour off at Peterborough, I assume for connections with the ECML. The quietest bit of the service is the part between Peterborough and Grantham, where people start getting on again for Nottingham.

I also think that reversing out of Sheffield then again at Ely does add significantly to journey times. Are there any other ways that change of route could speed up the service? Or better serve passengers.

It can't be avoided at Sheffield without missing the city entirely and heading from Manchester straight down to Chesterfield via the Dore curve. Taking the Tapton Old Road out of the north end of Sheffield station and looping back round to Chesterfield is further, slower and I understand the section of track immediately north of Sheffield station is again very busy.

I think the track layout means trains bound for Norwich cannot avoid reversing at Ely.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the track layout means trains bound for Norwich cannot avoid reversing at Ely.

The changes proposed for the junctions north of Ely should allow bidirectional working to be reintroduced on the connecting loop between March and Norwich, though whether any passenger operators will use it is anyone's guess.

The previous layout alterations there intended to allow such movements, but junction risk assessment, pre-TPWS, deemed certain routes through the single lead junctions too dangerous to allow; hence the current one - way working on the loop line.

 

[DarloRich]

@Qwerty133 - wibble wibble wibble wibble

You are obviously a kid so i will not be too harsh but it appears your main reason for not liking EMT is that some of the staff didn't immediately take on board your advice which, undoubtedly, is based upon a vast knowledge of railway operations. It appears this was compounded by their tragic failure to jump to you every command and suggestion coupled with a frankly shocking refusal to supply you with all of their train crew diagrams, their drivers inside leg measurements and what the guard likes for his tea!

Your service proposals appear to have everyone on the Liverpool - Norwich route changing trains at Nottingham. Do you propose that through services should end?

where do you propose the Corby - Kettering units stable and receive servicing overnight?

Do you propose that the Corby - London services be transformed into a Kettering - London service or do you intend simply to cut from the timetable the whole Corby - London service? If the later how do you propose to fill the gaps created in service to stations south of Kettering?

 

[Welshman]

@Qwerty133 - wibble wibble wibble wibble

Your service proposals appear to have everyone on the Liverpool - Norwich route changing trains at Nottingham. Do you propose that through services should end?

To be fair, this proposal has been around long before the OP mentioned it.
IIRC, there was even talk at one time of the Nottingham-Norwich service being transferred to another TOC.

 

[DarloRich]

I would transfer it to XC - it is a long distance cross country service after all!

 

[calc7]

Then we could have Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Norwich? Nice.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Fleet

With the main line being electrified no improvements there however 153 and 156 fleets to gain new seats - the same as EMT 158s and all sprinters to gain internal displays.

Services

Replace the Corby service with a 153 shuttle between Corby and Kettering saving 2 222s.
Liverpool to norwich to be split at notts Use the cascaded 222s to operate Liverpool to Nottingham services with doubled up 158s and singles 158s to Norwich.

3 of the four 158s go onto Nottingham to Matlock services with the fourth and 156s of Matlock on derby to Crewe

All other services would remain the same

A good idea for EMT would be to have a better Doncaster - Peterborough via Lincoln service which is a farce to say the least

 

[Lewisham2221]

Fleet

With the main line being electrified no improvements there however 153 and 156 fleets to gain new seats - the same as EMT 158s

Nothing wrong with the seats that 156's have got now.

 

[Metroland]

TBH I think what the northern part of the MML needs more than anything else when it's electrified is new EMU service between Nottingham, Leicester and Derby. Possibly Lincoln in the longer term.

Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, along with Loughborough have a combined metro population approaching 2 million. Nearly the size of the West Midlands or Greater Manchester conurbations. Yet the rail service is between in undeveloped at best.

For example, the basic Nottingham-Derby is short DMUs stopping most places. The Birmingham XC service runs via Derby, when it would make more sense to run straight there if the services between the two places where better. Derby already has a good Birmingham service.

A combination of fast/semi fast/stopping EMU services between Nottingham, Derby, Loughborough, Leicester and later Lincoln would be welcome with non-intercity fares to compete with local bus services. In turn the Intercity service should be speeded up with the slower trains calling at only 1 of the smaller stations (alternately) instead of acting like a stopping service, letting the EMUs do the donkey work.

For example, a Leicester, to Lincoln fast services is needed to compete with the A46. Loughborough - Derby/Nottingham could be done in about 10 minutes if there were non-stop services available, with lower fares, crushing bus competition. Ditto Nottingham - Derby could much quicker. Stopping services would of course remain but themselves be speeded up by superior acceleration.

 

[telstarbox]

It can't be avoided at Sheffield without missing the city entirely and heading from Manchester straight down to Chesterfield via the Dore curve. Taking the Tapton Old Road out of the north end of Sheffield station and looping back round to Chesterfield is further, slower and I understand the section of track immediately north of Sheffield station is again very busy.

The reverse at Sheffield doesn't add any time to the journey really (other than doubling back between Sheffield and Dore). So many people use the Liverpool-Norwich train at Sheffield that the driver and guard have 'swapped ends' before all the passengers have boarded and alighted. This is partly because the door layout on 158s makes them quite inefficient for large numbers of passenger movements!

 

[Kneedown]

I would transfer it to XC - it is a long distance cross country service after all!

Why? What difference would it make? You'd still have 158's on the service as there is nothing else available to replace them, they'd still be underpowered, they'd still get stuck behind the Northern stopping services. The only difference would be the 158's would be painted silver and burgundy, and the traincrew would be wearing grey instead of blue.

 

[DarloRich]

Why? What difference would it make? You'd still have 158's on the service as there is nothing else available to replace them, they'd still be underpowered, they'd still get stuck behind the Northern stopping services. The only difference would be the 158's would be painted silver and burgundy, and the traincrew would be wearing grey instead of blue.

Coupled to the suggestion would be more unsuitable rolling stock, which as you point out, is not yet available. It MAY be available once electrification happens.

 

[W230]

The reverse at Sheffield doesn't add any time to the journey really (other than doubling back between Sheffield and Dore).

Yep - I'm in full agreement. It would seem mad having a passenger service coming so close to Sheffield then avoiding it just to save a few minutes. Especially as the services between Manchester and Sheffield are so often rammed.

 

[MCR247]

I would transfer it to XC - it is a long distance cross country service after all!

Ah right - it does make sense moving routes between franchises for no other reason that the route would suit the name of the other franchise better :roll:

But any problems that would arise - don't worry, at least they are there for a good reason :roll:

 

[43074]

What is needed is a separate Midland Main Line InterCity franchise (bring back Midland Mainline) and separate local franchises.

Local routes could then be transferred to London Midland or alternatively a new franchise created by transferring Sheffield to Lincoln and Barton on Humber to Cleethorpes services to a new East Midlands Local franchise (EMT without the Mainline).

Liverpool to Norwich, Nottingham to Cardiff & Birmingham to Leicester & Stansted should become a separate franchise (Open Access?) altogether.

This way, a completely focussed operation would come into being, operators could focus on a single service type (InterCity, Regional or Local), although EMT do quite well as it is.

 

[dosxuk]

This way, a completely focussed operation would come into being, operators could focus on a single service type (InterCity, Regional or Local) and deliver new trains, faster services and vast infrastructure improvements (like sorting out Derby and Trent Junction).

How would having more operators deliever any of those benefits? Surely a single operator, tasked with those improvements, could implement them just as well, if not more efficiently?

I actually think EMT does quite well, apart from the lack of stock, but that's not their fault. Overall, it's significantly better than what we had before.

 

[Tomnick]

What's wrong with Trent Junction? Trent East was significantly remodeled with the recent resignalling. As an aside, there isn't a service between Barrow in Furness and Cleethorpes. Barton on Humber perhaps?

 

[ainsworth74]

What is needed is a separate Midland Main Line InterCity franchise (bring back Midland Mainline) and separate local franchises.

I think multi-purpose franchises are the way to go really, FGW, for example, works very well with long distance, commuter and regional services part of the same franchise. I have to say I'm not sure there would be any particular advantage to splitting MML services back into a separate franchise and hiving off the short distance stuff to other operators.

Liverpool to Norwich, Nottingham to Cardiff & Birmingham to Leicester & Stansted should become a separate franchise (Open Access?) altogether.

Eh? Firstly why should they be removed from the existing franchises and secondly why on earth would Open Access be a good idea?

 

[telstarbox]

What is needed is a separate Midland Main Line InterCity franchise (bring back Midland Mainline) and separate local franchises.

Local routes could then be transferred to London Midland or alternatively a new franchise created by transferring Sheffield to Lincoln and Barton on Humber to Cleethorpes services to a new East Midlands Local franchise (EMT without the Mainline).

The mainline franchise would make lots of money and the 'local' franchise would lose it, ie require subsidy.

 

[tbtc]

The MML "Intercity" services would probably be too small to warrant a stand alone franchise - you'd only have around forty trains