Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

[Trainfan344]

If the service gets split at Nottingham are they at least making it a half hourly Norwich to Nottingham service? As it is the only direct train from Norwich to the ECML at Peterborough

 

[VT 390]

If the service gets split at Nottingham are they at least making it a half hourly Norwich to Nottingham service? As it is the only direct train from Norwich to the ECML at Peterborough

I was not aware of any plans to increase the frequency of EMR services to Norwich.

 

[MS805]

Journey times are only 10-20 minutes quicker for a journey of over 5 hours from Liverpool to Norwich via London against direct, but will usually cost more than twice as much. That's the case for tomorrow.

In any case, this is all a bit irrelevant as the arguments that the Liverpool - Norwich service is slower than via London and thus a bit pointless are a red herring, because that's not the only journey people do on that service. It maybe true that Liverpool or Warrington to Norwich is quicker via London but for all the other pairs of stops it isn't (although it's an earlier arrival from Manchester or Stockport if you've just missed one). There are busy flows from Manchester and Sheffield to Peterborough and Ely that cross Nottingham but are not quicker via London.

 

[VT 390]

In any case, this is all a bit irrelevant as the arguments that the Liverpool - Norwich service is slower than via London and thus a bit pointless are a red herring, because that's not the only journey people do on that service. It maybe true that Liverpool or Warrington to Norwich is quicker via London but for all the other pairs of stops it isn't (although it's an earlier arrival from Manchester or Stockport if you've just missed one). There are busy flows from Manchester and Sheffield to Peterborough and Ely that cross Nottingham but are not quicker via London.

But won't most journeys from Manchester/Sheffield to Peterborough (and further east) be quicker or the same via a change at Doncaster?
Also if price is the concern the current route will still be doable easily just with a change at Nottingham.

 

[dk1]

If the service gets split at Nottingham are they at least making it a half hourly Norwich to Nottingham service? As it is the only direct train from Norwich to the ECML at Peterborough

I'm confused by what you mean. It is only hourly now from Norwich-Peterborough. Why does it need to double just because it's being split?

 

[naverag]

But won't most journeys from Manchester/Sheffield to Peterborough (and further east) be quicker or the same via a change at Doncaster?
Also if price is the concern the current route will still be doable easily just with a change at Nottingham.

Yes. Sheffield to Grantham is 1h 6m changing at Doncaster and 1h30m direct via Nottingham, with similar numbers to places further east. I don't know where that time goes but it means I barely use the route despite regularly doing Sheffield - East Anglia. (And on the topic of price, my general experience is that Advances on the ECML are cheaper than those on the East Midlands service).

 

[43074]

If the service gets split at Nottingham are they at least making it a half hourly Norwich to Nottingham service? As it is the only direct train from Norwich to the ECML at Peterborough

No its staying hourly. To be honest that's all it needs to be, Cambridge to Peterbrough is the one which could do with that sort of increase really

 

[tbtc]

8.47 £171.00 single via London 2 changes arriving 13.50 Journey time 5:03 Hopefully 30 minutes at Liverpool Street for a break and better catering on mainline trains

8.52 £48.40 single direct arriving 14.13 Journey time 5:21 All on one train with limited catering

8.56 £107.10 single via Leeds and Peterborough arriving 14.13 (same train) Journey time 5:19 with time for half hour breaks at both

3 options each hour with maximum 22 minutes difference in total journey time, but big differences in fares.

I agree, 5 hours on a 158 going, literally, backwards and forwards (reverses at Sheffield and Ely) might push me to the via Leeds option. The price would deter me from via London.

Interesting examples.

But worth pointing out to some others on the thread that not all demand is central Liverpool/central Manchester to central Norwich. If you're starting off in Runcorn or Stockport, or going to Ipswich or Cambridge then things are nothing like as clear cut. Just because the messy combination of BR journeys have evolved into the current service which is (just) Liverpool to (just) Norwich doesn't mean that those are the only two pairs with the biggest demand - it's been as much about operational convenience as anything else.

 

[Ianno87]

Interesting examples.

But worth pointing out to some others on the thread that not all demand is central Liverpool/central Manchester to central Norwich. If you're starting off in Runcorn or Stockport, or going to Ipswich or Cambridge then things are nothing like as clear cut. Just because the messy combination of BR journeys have evolved into the current service which is (just) Liverpool to (just) Norwich doesn't mean that those are the only two pairs with the biggest demand - it's been as much about operational convenience as anything else.

The existence of Liverpool-Norwich is indeed alot down to operational convenience. As set out in The Regional Railways Story (excellent book BTW), it was really just an efficiency so that the service could be near entirely operated by Nottingham crews (with a few at Norwich)...I recall the 158s were allocated to Crown Point in the 90s as well, which would've been a factor.

All quite correct in the context of a declining early 90s railway under pressure to trim costs. But times have moved on.

 

[Llandudno]

But consider it's 5-odd hours on a single direct train with limited catering or other facilities.

Or 4-odd hours spread on two trains (plus a Tube) with opportunity for fresh air, a leg stretch and a sandwich/coffee in London. For such a length of journey, that can be appealing.

Fresh air in Central London and on the tube???


I would much rather sit back and relax with a book, some music and a decent packed lunch on a class 158 enjoying the varied countryside between the North West and Norfolk. Not to mention being over £50 better off in the pocket!

 

[VT 390]

Which ever route is taken are there actually that many people from the Manchester/Liverpool going to Ely/Norwich?

 

[Ianno87]

Fresh air in Central London and on the tube???


I would much rather sit back and relax with a book, some music and a decent packed lunch on a class 158 enjoying the varied countryside between the North West and Norfolk. Not to mention being over £50 better off in the pocket!

This is the point this thread keeps spectacularly missing - *you* may indeed do that for the entitely rational reasons you set out, governed by how you personally value your time, convenience, value for money, etc.

People making business trips (for example) value different things. If it costs a bit more but gets you back to your family 30 minutes quicker, then that's what they'll do.

Or, more likely, leisure travellers may see that a train takes 4-5 odd hours and just not bother at all (or try it once and 'never again'). So what's the point in designing an service around that?

Which ever route is taken are there actually that many people from the Manchester/Liverpool going to Ely/Norwich?

We seem to be talking about half to a carriage's worth of passengers each hour crossing Nottingham, typically. It's reasonable to assume that drops off a fair amount by the time Manchester/Ely are reached.

I live in Cambridge, and Manchester is reasonably comptitive on journey time via Nottingham compared to other routes. Warrington/Liverpool, however is the tipping point where via London becomes significantly quickerm

 

[SteveM70]

Which ever route is taken are there actually that many people from the Manchester/Liverpool going to Ely/Norwich?

I did Manchester to Norwich on Friday coming back Tuesday. But only because I’d had such a disastrous previous trip back from Norwich to Leeds (arrived something like 255L) that as well as a full refund EMR offered me a free return ticket anywhere on their network

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Anyone aware of how plans to split the Liverpool - Norwich service at Nottingham are progressing?

I ask because of an article on the Derby Live website on 31 October 2019 regarding Pear Tree station; it claimed that EMR are considering stopping more trains at the station, and that these would establish direct services to Nottingham and Newark with effect from December 2020. This fits in with the report in September's 'Modern Railways' which declares (on page 58) that the Crewe - Derby service would be extended through to Nottingham and Newark with the timetable change in that month, but that the splitting of the Norwich - Liverpool service at Nottingham would not take effect until December 2021; the 'Modern Railways' article also indicates that EMR are reconsidering their initial plan to extend the Norwich - Nottingham leg to Matlock, and terminate it at Derby instead

 

[Killingworth]

Anyone aware of how plans to split the Liverpool - Norwich service at Nottingham are progressing?

I ask because of an article on the Derby Live website on 31 October 2019 regarding Pear Tree station; it claimed that EMR are considering stopping more trains at the station, and that these would establish direct services to Nottingham and Newark with effect from December 2020. This fits in with the report in September's 'Modern Railways' which declares (on page 58) that the Crewe - Derby service would be extended through to Nottingham and Newark with the timetable change in that month, but that the splitting of the Norwich - Liverpool service at Nottingham would not take effect until December 2021; the 'Modern Railways' article also indicates that EMR are reconsidering their initial plan to extend the Norwich - Nottingham leg to Matlock, and terminate it at Derby instead

I've also heard that Norwich - Nottingham won't be continued to Matlock. The chances of delays to the Derwent valley are too great. When the split occurs is being delayed time after time, but the 185s supposedly to be used for Nottingham-Liverpool aren't ready yet anyway and at the present rate won't be until 2021.

 

[Geeves]

I could've been dreaming but was it stated that TPE were keeping the entire fleet of 185s now? That would make sense for the operator and depot most familiar with said units to keep hold of them on the Liverpool - Nottingham work?

 

[edwin_m]

I've also heard that Norwich - Nottingham won't be continued to Matlock. The chances of delays to the Derwent valley are too great.

That causes other problems. The Matlock service would need another hourly path between Derby and Nottingham (possibly justifiable by passenger numbers but is there the capacity or the stock?) or be cut back to Derby (very inefficient use of stock if the service remains hourly, as a round trip can't reliably be done in an hour). Or run Matlock-Newark as now and keep the Crewe terminating at Derby, which keeps the unattractive change at Derby for people off that line wanting Nottingham.

I think my personal preference would be Crewe-Nottingham, Matlock-Newark (or vice versa to optimize unit utilisation) and turn the Norwich back at Nottingham. But even after the 2013 remodeling platform capacity at Nottingham could be an issue.

 

[VT 390]

That causes other problems. The Matlock service would need another hourly path between Derby and Nottingham (possibly justifiable by passenger numbers but is there the capacity or the stock?) or be cut back to Derby (very inefficient use of stock if the service remains hourly, as a round trip can't reliably be done in an hour). Or run Matlock-Newark as now and keep the Crewe terminating at Derby, which keeps the unattractive change at Derby for people off that line wanting Nottingham.

I think my personal preference would be Crewe-Nottingham, Matlock-Newark (or vice versa to optimize unit utilisation) and turn the Norwich back at Nottingham. But even after the 2013 remodeling platform capacity at Nottingham could be an issue.

Would it be possible to join the Matlock/Crewe services at Derby both running through to Newark?

 

[edwin_m]

Would it be possible to join the Matlock/Crewe services at Derby both running through to Newark?

Maybe in principle, but the split/join would need extra time and a risk of disruption if one of the joining portions is delayed. Perhaps more importantly, you would need to run four cars all the way from Derby to Newark, needing more units and unlikely to be worthwhile for the number of passengers. Leaving the financials aside, I get the impression EMR has scoured the country for spare 170s and if they need any more they would have to be another class and they would lose the benefit of a uniform fleet. Or go back to single cars on Matlock and Crewe turns, which would be heavily overcrowded for most of the day.

 

[swt_passenger]

I could've been dreaming but was it stated that TPE were keeping the entire fleet of 185s now? That would make sense for the operator and depot most familiar with said units to keep hold of them on the Liverpool - Nottingham work?

I doubt it’s ever been “officially stated”, given the change of operator is still to be decided. Logical it may be, and I guess many posters assume TPE would keep all the fleet; but that’s about it AFAICT.

 

[Class 170101]

I think my personal preference would be Crewe-Nottingham, Matlock-Newark (or vice versa to optimize unit utilisation) and turn the Norwich back at Nottingham. But even after the 2013 remodeling platform capacity at Nottingham could be an issue.

I'd prefer Norwich to Crewe and leave Matlock to Newark as it is now, unchanged (unfortunately it can't get to Lincoln).

 

[edwin_m]

I'd prefer Norwich to Crewe and leave Matlock to Newark as it is now, unchanged (unfortunately it can't get to Lincoln).

As I think I pointed out several pages back, the turnaround at Crewe is very short. Unless the timetable could be changed to increase it (difficult due to interactions with several other services), Norwich-Crewe would be a good deal more unreliable than Norwich-Matlock.

 

[Class 170101]

As I think I pointed out several pages back, the turnaround at Crewe is very short. Unless the timetable could be changed to increase it (difficult due to interactions with several other services), Norwich-Crewe would be a good deal more unreliable than Norwich-Matlock.

Unless you could stay in a platform at Crewe for longer than one hour and step back?

 

[vlad]

Unless you could stay in a platform at Crewe for longer than one hour and step back?

I suppose trains could alternate between platforms 2 and 3 but it seems a waste of a unit if you don't do anything with it for over an hour.

 

[edwin_m]

Unless you could stay in a platform at Crewe for longer than one hour and step back?

I suppose trains could alternate between platforms 2 and 3 but it seems a waste of a unit if you don't do anything with it for over an hour.

You probably could, but I doubt EMR will have allowed for the extra unit that would need.

 

[ChrisC]

As I think I pointed out several pages back, the turnaround at Crewe is very short. Unless the timetable could be changed to increase it (difficult due to interactions with several other services), Norwich-Crewe would be a good deal more unreliable than Norwich-Matlock.

Norwich-Crewe would require timetables to be changed. I can’t see the timetable between Nottingham and Norwich being changed too drastically because of fitting in with paths on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough. Also reasonable connections with the Nottingham to Liverpool service ought to be maintained in Nottingham.

I would think that Nottingham to Crewe, with reversal at Derby, would take a maximum of 1 hour 50 minutes. If current timings are maintained between Nottingham and Norwich that would require complete new timings for Derby to Crewe and I estimate a minimum of 20 minutes turn around at Crewe. But could that be done because of pathing between Nottingham and Derby and also between Derby and Crewe. I am not sure how different arrival and departure times at Crewe would cause problems with onward connections.

However, this is all speculation. Norwich to at least Derby would be useful and also a restored Nottingham to Crewe would be very useful.

 

[edwin_m]

Norwich-Crewe would require timetables to be changed. I can’t see the timetable between Nottingham and Norwich being changed too drastically because of fitting in with paths on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough. Also reasonable connections with the Nottingham to Liverpool service ought to be maintained in Nottingham.

I would think that Nottingham to Crewe, with reversal at Derby, would take a maximum of 1 hour 50 minutes. If current timings are maintained between Nottingham and Norwich that would require complete new timings for Derby to Crewe and I estimate a minimum of 20 minutes turn around at Crewe. But could that be done because of pathing between Nottingham and Derby and also between Derby and Crewe. I am not sure how different arrival and departure times at Crewe would cause problems with onward connections.

There is presumably a path as far as Derby because that was planned for the Norwich-Matlock. I'm more concerned about Stoke-Kidsgrove and the single line on the approach to Crewe itself. These days connections between TOCs are a bonus if they are possible but I doubt there are more than a handful countrywide that are considered essential in timetable planning, especially as there's nothing to stop the other TOC changing its own timetable and undoing all the hard work.

 

[frodshamfella]

Fresh air in Central London and on the tube???


I would much rather sit back and relax with a book, some music and a decent packed lunch on a class 158 enjoying the varied countryside between the North West and Norfolk. Not to mention being over £50 better off in the pocket!

I'm traveling from Liverpool South Parkway to Norwich in a few weeks, I did check out going from Runcorn to Euston to Liverpool Street to Norwich. In the end I preferred the ease of the direct train as I have luggage. I'm taking a train from Frodsham to South Parkway to connect with the Norwich train. I know its a long haul , but its not unpleasant scenery, will make sure I have food and drink with me.
I've gone via London before, its still a long trip that way.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Regarding the suggestions about forthcoming EMR service changes, the DfT franchise map is very specific; the Matlock - Derby - Nottingham - Newark service will operate at least as far as Nottingham, the current Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool one will be replaced by a Norwich - Nottingham - Derby one running on an hourly frequency (and thus providing an extra train each hour between Nottingham and Derby), and that MOST Derby - Crewe services will be extended through to Nottingham (the emphasis on most is mine).

My first recollection of seeing the suggestion that the proposed Norwich - Derby service would be extended through to Matlock was in an edition of 'Modern Railways', but the same magazine also reported (in a later edition) that EMR was having second thoughts about this and on page 58 of September's 'Modern Railways' it just shows it as being Norwich - Derby; the timetable plan (for December 2021) shown on the same page of the September 'Modern Railways' also shows the Crewe - Derby services being extended through to Newark via Nottingham, and the Matlock - Newark service being cut-back to Nottingham. All are operated on an hourly frequency, thereby giving 3xEMR and 2xXC services each hour in the Derby - Nottingham corridor. That'll be interesting around Sheet Stores and Trent!

I haven't been able to discover anything about EMR's consultation for the 2020 timetable change by an internet search, but by combining the DfT's franchise maps, the timetable plan for December 2021 published in September's 'Modern Railways', and the report on the Derby Live website referred to in an earlier post, it does look as if there is now a settled plan by EMR as to how it proposes to alter its regional services over the December 2020 and December 2021 timetable changes; moreover, some of the Crewe - Newark trains may also stop at Pear Tree!

So it looks, therefore, as if the split in the Norwich - Liverpool service is definitely going ahead, and that all that has to be decided is who will operate the Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool leg.

Information published thus far indicate that EMR will have a Regional fleet comprised only of 'Turbostars'; will they have enough if the Norwich - Nottingham service only goes as far as Derby, the Crewe - Derby service is extended through to Newark, and the Matlock - Nottingham operates as an independent service rather than (as was once envisaged) an extension of the Norwich - Derby service?

Finally, any news as to when the operator of the Nottingham - Liverpool service will be known? And has EMR been invited to operate it as a stand-alone service?

 

[BHXDMT]

Finally, any news as to when the operator of the Nottingham - Liverpool service will be known? And has EMR been invited to operate it as a stand-alone service?

It's all gone a bit quiet lately, though I'm sure behind the scenes things might be happening.

The options were transfer to TPE, Northern, or remain with EMR as a separated service at Nottingham.