However the DfT subsequently used weasel words, the summary of which was 'we will not be pursuing the Nottingham option at this time, but will reexamine it when awarding the EMT franchise', given that there are clearly other very significant changes to the Northern Connect routes in Cumbria I would not discount something happening here.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
East Midlands franchise prospectus
- Thread starter snowball
- Start date
- Status
However the DfT subsequently used weasel words, the summary of which was 'we will not be pursuing the Nottingham option at this time, but will reexamine it when awarding the EMT franchise', given that there are clearly other very significant changes to the Northern Connect routes in Cumbria I would not discount something happening here.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I may be remembering wrongly, but I thought that Manchester-Hull via Sheffield was a suggested diversion of the Cleethorpes services to make up for Hull being axed from North TPE, which was a possibility at the time.
The 195s were always meant to be stretched thinly, and there's always more 319s to convert or pacers to retain if Northern are short of sprinters. TPE aren't in any better position to run a 3rd Hope Valley service because they are giving up some of the 185s once their new stock arrives.
In any case I don't believe the Hope Valley upgrades will ever happen.
High Dyke
Established Member
I didn't see much of a commitment to improve services in Lincolnshire, especially the service between Lincoln and Peterborough via Sleaford and Spalding. The line was upgraded during the GN/GE Project, but timings have never been amended to reflect the improvements. Equally extra services are provided to/from Nottingham on Sunday, but there is still no service after teatime between Sleaford and Spalding, and nothing on the route on a Sunday.
The overwhelming majority of additional Hope Valley services I have seen people posting about are based on the fact that there will be 185s available. Whilst current plans see TPE giving up 22 of these units, there is an ongoing shortage of units in the North, and new capacity operated by TPE with 185s and/or transferring routes from Northern would be one way to make good use of this.
I think I am right in saying that the additional Sheffield to Manchester express service is the single biggest Transport for the North aspiration outside of HS3/NPR that has not yet been delivered.
Yes re-examining Liverpool to Nottingham was included as a possibility but I don't see why doing that would mean re-examining where South TPE goes after Doncaster would be something the DfT will consider changing.
What significant changes are there to the Northern Connect routes in Cumbria? If a couple of 331s become IPEMUs then everything can remain the same as it was when the franchise was let. Most Northern Connect services to Cumbria will be Barrow services.
Is it still an aspiration? I thought they looked at the option of a Chester-Manchester-Sheffield service but decided against it.
The Hope Valley upgrades are relatively cheap and don't involve electrification therefore are a easy political win for the government. Doubling the capacity of the Manchester to Sheffield line for £100-150m is a bargain. The TWA for the passing loops was submitted at end of last year and should be passed soon. I expect it to be announced later this year at a politically useful moment. Whether any significant line speed improvements will be approved is a different matter...
If the next Wales and Borders franchise does not use 185s then there is a real chance they could go off lease. At the same time the EM franchise needs more sprinters including 158s and TfN and TfGM want TPE to takeover part of the service. A cut back of EMTs service is therefore a very obvious solution and I think it was only avoided in the TPE franchise ITT because that already involved huge changes and didn't need more to complicate things.
I think they will reconsider destinations east of Doncaster once Hope Valley passing loops are built but it doesn't make sense to do it before then only to have to recast again once more capacity is available. I doubt any changes would effect south TPE services east of Sheffield, any swapping of services with EMT needs to be self contained and straightforward to avoid a major recast in the middle of the TPE franchise. A split in Nottingham would remove cross city links plus would require 12 class 185s + spares to stay with TPE. The 10 remain 185s might be difficult to lease as a mini fleet athough they could run a third Hope Valley service if / when capacity is increased. A split at Sheffield would cut Nottinghams direct service to Manchester and would need 8 class 185s to be retained with 14 going off lease. Thats why I suggested swapping south TPE and EMTs western terminus of Liverpool and Manchester Airport. Liverpool would retain direct services to Sheffield but not Nottingham, while Sheffield would retain services to Manchester Airport. It would also involve few units, probably only 2 or 3 extra 185s staying with TPE. It would be simplest option that provides a small boost to EM franchise rolling stock while avoiding a significant political backlash. It would keep options open for bigger changes as part of an introduction of a third Hope Valley express service.
I thought that was because the uncertainty over if / when capacity will be increased to allow it?
I was thinking more along the lines that the Cleethorpes is set now, but that what the services on the Hope Valley look like with a 3rd express would be looked at again. I think the case for maintaining Cleethorpes link to Manchester is now beyond question.
Well. In theory it could be that simple, however I rather think that there will be all kinds of 'unknown unknows' which will crop up. The most obviously difficult issue is that the Barrow (2/3) and the Windermere (1/3) of the service from the Airport were intended to interwork. Quite how a 769/IPEMU can be InterWorks with something else, or if time can be found for it to stand in the station for hours etc we will see.
Would this be better suited to the next West Midland franchise?
Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk
Have you actually seen some plan that shows Windermere and Barrow services on the same diagram? The franchise was let on the basis that 195s would run both services at the December 19 timetable change (which is still the plan - the 769 is only a temporary solution for 18 months) and that provision for 331s taking over Windermere services at a later date should be allowed for (now changed to an option for 'alternative powered trains.') They'll be shuttle services to/from Barrow and Windermere in the hours the Connect services aren't running and they'll be other class 195 operated services to/from the Airport so plenty of diagramming options without interworking Barrow and Windermere services.
Potentially yes but the option of switching these services and or inter working them with Liverpool to Norwich services was suggested in the EM franchise prospectus.
I must agree that swapping the western termini of TPE and EMT seems fairly sensible. However, has anyone ever suggested moving some 185s onto EMT to cover Norwich to Liverpool/Man Air? This would create a better intercity service out of that route, and they could still be split/doubled at Nottingham, creating more capacity Notts to Liv/Man.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's been suggested many times on here. The problem is that 185s can't use the higher speeds permitted for Sprinters on many routes. This doesn't make much difference between Nottingham and Liverpool as there are few such differential restrictions, but east of Nottingham it apparently means 185s wouldn't match the timings of 158s.
dk1
Veteran Member
There may be some movement on this. Rumours are circulating that the new Stadler units will fall into this bracket due to the power-pack on the bi-mode fleet. Suddenly money will be found or the restriction found to be not necessary in the first place. We will have to see.
CommuterPigeon
Member
185s would need some pretty major seating reconfiguration to be practical compared to a 158.
2 185s (6 carriages) provides the same number of seats as 2 158s (4 carriages) so assuming the next franchise has to meet future growth you'd likely end up with 9 car 185s rather than 6 car 158s, even if you do reconfigure the seating. Nottingham to Norwich is also a long way to send a 185 when a 2 car would suffice.
Not that I'm saying 158s are the answer for Liverpool-Norwich! And I do much prefer travelling TPE over EM between Sheffield and Manchester but I don't think 185s would be all too practical. They may be moreso if we ever see the 3rd Sheffield-Manchester path from the proposed Hope Valley upgrade.
OK, so I see why 185s can't be used. Now for my next uneducated suggestion (not exactly a new one, but anyway)...
Does anyone have stats on the through traffic from Liv/Man to beyond Notts, because I can't imagine it's particularly large? In which case, what's the harm in splitting Liverpool-Norwich into a Liv - Notts and a Sheffield - Norwich. This would allow high-capacity Northern connect or TPE trains on the western section, and a slower EMT 158 to continue on the eastern section.
Whilst I'm all for long distance cross country services, the 6 hours or so it takes from Liverpool to Norwich make me feel it isn't all that important here and a break might be appreciated in the form of a change anyway.
This would obviously require slightly more rolling stock and the available paths between Notts and Sheffield (particularly on the Dore - SHF bit), but it would solve some of the other problems of the long service.
Now for those more educated than myself to point out why this is a (good/bad/terrible/apocalyptic) [delete as appropriate] idea...
Does anyone have stats on the through traffic from Liv/Man to beyond Notts, because I can't imagine it's particularly large? In which case, what's the harm in splitting Liverpool-Norwich into a Liv - Notts and a Sheffield - Norwich. This would allow high-capacity Northern connect or TPE trains on the western section, and a slower EMT 158 to continue on the eastern section.
Whilst I'm all for long distance cross country services, the 6 hours or so it takes from Liverpool to Norwich make me feel it isn't all that important here and a break might be appreciated in the form of a change anyway.
This would obviously require slightly more rolling stock and the available paths between Notts and Sheffield (particularly on the Dore - SHF bit), but it would solve some of the other problems of the long service.
Now for those more educated than myself to point out why this is a (good/bad/terrible/apocalyptic) [delete as appropriate] idea...
Last edited:
Does the Norwich need to go as far as Sheffield? Or even Nottingham?
If you think about unit use overall, it might be able to do 1tph to Peterborough and another 1tph to Notts (Ely notwithstanding) - or similar... or perhaps one along to Birmingham instead.
If you think about unit use overall, it might be able to do 1tph to Peterborough and another 1tph to Notts (Ely notwithstanding) - or similar... or perhaps one along to Birmingham instead.
Qwerty133
Established Member
Honestly in many ways Birmingham to Nottingham is the perfect route for 153s...
With spare trains normally being available at Birmingham and depots at Derby and Nottingham they should be easy to replace when (not if) they break down.
More seriously I'm sure that 153s will have worked the route in CT days (they certainly worked trains between Leicester and Birmingham including on one memorable occasion when I was about 7 the first off peak service towards Birmingham during half term.
OK, so I see why 185s can't be used. Now for my next uneducated suggestion (not exactly a new one, but anyway)...
Does anyone have stats on the through traffic from Liv/Man to beyond Notts, because I can't imagine it's particularly large? In which case, what's the harm in splitting Liverpool-Norwich into a Liv - Notts and a Sheffield - Norwich. This would allow high-capacity Northern connect or TPE trains on the western section, and a slower EMT 158 to continue on the eastern section.
Whilst I'm all for long distance cross country services, the 6 hours or so it takes from Liverpool to Norwich make me feel it isn't all that important here and a break might be appreciated in the form of a change anyway.
This would obviously require slightly more rolling stock and the available paths between Notts and Sheffield (particularly on the Dore - SHF bit), but it would solve some of the other problems of the long service.
Now for those more educated than myself to point out why this is a (good/bad/terrible/apocalyptic) [delete as appropriate] idea...
End to end journeys are very low but cross Nottingham use is much higher. Nottingham justifies a service to Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield a service to Manchester Airport. There is not an ideal solution and the better ones involve a third Hope Valley express service which require passing loops. Yours would be good if it could work. TPE would need 12 class 185s + spares to run a comparable service between Liverpool and Nottingham. EMT would have 10 class 158s to use elsewhere so it would only need 4 extra units. No idea if there are the paths though and it would only be 2 coaches between Nottingham and Sheffield if seperating and joining units at Nottingham was stopped.
jamesontheroad
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,046
+1
I've done Liverpool - Norwich once, and both conductors (Liverpool - Nottingham / Nottingham - Norwich) commented on me being one of the rare end to end trips.
But having done many trips 'across' Nottingham I can attest to the popularity of the route. Splitting it would inconvenience hundreds of passengers every day, and tens of thousands every year.
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
My view is that 5 car Voyagers (class 220 or class 222) would be good for this route. Main reasons are to do with speed, accelleration, capacity, route clearance, driver familiarity, maintenance base etc.
EMT have class 222 units that might be freed up at some stage, particularly when new electric units for Corby eventually appear.
XC have very similar class 220 units that would also be suitable, but they are already over stretched elsewhere with no prospect of any becoming free.
I'm not sure it makes much difference which franchise the service is in.
Every time I travel on the route, the current trains are full to standing, but for some reason the latest West Midlands rail strategy says this is not the case, with no need to lengthen trains ??????
As the consultation is in Sheffield next week I will be raising the issue of the near monopoly Stagecoach have on the routes from South Yorkshire to London. Currently the cheapest walk on fare is via Tamworth.
I am also concerned that Sheffield needs easy access to Luton Airport and Bedford as well as Cambridge.
What wording should I use to reflect concern over the potential increase in journey times to London?
I am also concerned that Sheffield needs easy access to Luton Airport and Bedford as well as Cambridge.
What wording should I use to reflect concern over the potential increase in journey times to London?
It has been stated time after time after time in various topics that voyagers / 222`s / 185`s would be heavily speed restricted on parts of the route (especially in the east) so the overall times would be slower. Now, if a previous poster is correct and the Stadler units coming soon will also fall foul of these restrictions and so there MIGHT be some money found at last to remove the restrictions then that changes things alot. Time, no doubt will tell.
So your saying that Manchester to East Anglia is a busy route (overlapping allows SHF - East Anglia and Man to Notts)? In this case, you either have to bite the bullet and make them change, or we're back to square one on splitting.
I don't think he stated Manchester to East Anglia is a busy route. Nottingham to Norwich is only two coaches. The problem with splitting revolves around maintaining a service through Nottingham while also providing the city with a service to Manchester. 2 coaches would be fine between Sheffield and Nottingham if TPE ran Nottingham to Liverpool with double 185s (mirroring the current use of doubled 158s). Unless paths can be found its irrelevant though).
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
The DfT don't care about that sort of thing, that's a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and usually results in them requiring caps on fare rises etc.
For what reason? Bi-modes? Thameslink? The blame is firmly with DfT for both of those, and I don't think anything will make them change their tune either, i.e. passengers will just have to put up with it unfortunately.
Emblematic
Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 659
I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the DfT for the level of traffic on Thameslink. They seems to have done whatever they can to drive passengers away.
jamesontheroad
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,046
I was at the Leicester consultation event today.
I echo 43074 just above - this consultation is not the place to comment on a specific franchisee, because they are seeking feedback on the future franchise specification, not the eventual operator.
It was a point of some discussion that the proposal imagines all intercity trains from Leicester and points north to St. Pancras would run non-stop between Wellingborough and London. Wellingborough would become a transfer point to "high quality" electric slow / semi-fast Corby - St. Pancras trains.
I'd favour at least one early morning and late evening intercity service that stops at Luton Airport Parkway. It would be a good idea to ensure easy access to flights departing 7AM onwards.
On the subject of journey times, the current DfT preference appears to be to separate out intercity and commuter traffic as much as possible (even on Norwich - Liverpool). That means that by removing stops south of Wellingborough on all intercity trains, journey times can hopefully be reduced.
However, there continues to be a somewhat blind faith in the as yet largely untested technology of bi-mode trains. These are being presented as the silver bullet to solve everyone's problems. Until I see a working prototype and fully calculated costs / speed / fuel consumption / etc I remain sceptical.
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
I was referring to Birmingham to Nottingham, and as 220's already operate at very fast speeds on Birmingham to Derby, I assumed that 222's would be fine.
Are there are severe speed restrictions Derby - Nottingham?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Sheet Stores is 10mph one way and 15mph the other, and the curve round to Trent is 30mph. Between Derby and Sheet Stores most of the line is 100mph or possibly a bit more, with lower speeds on the Nottingham branch. There are no differential speed restrictions. Even if it isn't possible to get over 100mph the greater acceleration of the 222 ought to shave a minute or two off this section. Several evening London-Nottingham trains reverse there and run to Derby, either empty or in service, so it would be possible to compare their timings with the 170s that work the hourly non-stop.
- Status