802s (and 800s) can switch power source in motion. Hopefully now that the DfT have won the legal battle and the Transport Works Act Order has been granted for the Hope Valley passing loops the 3rd express service could start in December 2021. I would favour using 802s as soon as a follow on order can arrive then switch them to the Chat Moss route as soon as Northern can run a Northern Connect service between Liverpool and Sheffield via the CLC.
-
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!
Liverpool to Norwich services to end at December 2021 timetable change
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
802s (and 800s) can switch power source in motion. Hopefully now that the DfT have won the legal battle and the Transport Works Act Order has been granted for the Hope Valley passing loops the 3rd express service could start in December 2021. I would favour using 802s as soon as a follow on order can arrive then switch them to the Chat Moss route as soon as Northern can run a Northern Connect service between Liverpool and Sheffield via the CLC.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
With the 3rd fast service (hopefully) starting at around the same time as these changes, it will be interesting to see if DfT maintain competition on the Sheffield-Manchester route by giving Northern a service. Possibly the Hull to Sheffield Northern Connect extended to Manchester?
If you can fit them on Chat Moss. They'll be 3 fast Liverpool to Manchester services by December 2019 plus a Manchester to Cumbria and 2 x Manchester to Chester, while at the Liverpool end they'll be the new Liverpool to Glasgow services some hours.
Even if you can there might be issues around Oxford Rd as they'll need to be a replacement semi-fast on the CLC and I don't think there's a quick way of doing Victoria to Sheffield.
Fitting in an extra service at Oxford Road would certainly be a problem in the short term. Victoria to Sheffield is possible using the Stalybridge to Stockport line which has a double track section connecting to the line into Victoria to the west of Ashton. I don't think the line would be suitable for an intercity service without some investment though. I think the current Northern debacle makes a Victoria to Stockport service Northern service more likely as a way to divert one service per hour away from Piccadilly. I am generally in favour of choosing intercity services first then working out what local services can be fitted around them. In the case of Manchester every line can have all the services and capacity it needs just not necessarily with 2-4 coach trains or to Piccadilly and / or Oxford Road. Chat Moss route now has a 4 track section so should be able to fit another service once services between Manchester and Wigan stop running on the double track section east of Golborne Junction.
Steve Harris
Member
That is pretty much exactly what used to happen pre sprinterisation (or service pattern in the 1980's). Back then it was a 2 hourly service Norwich - Birmingham and Cambridge - Birmingham with a first generation DMU filling inbetween on Cambridge - Peterborough.
I think you might be getting a little confused as pre sprinterisation there was only 1 train a day between Liverpool and Cambridge.
I cant remember exactly how the service was swapped from Birmingham- Norwich to Liverpool - Norwich but i certianly know there was only 1 Cambridge - Liverpool service which in Loco hauled days was via Sheffield and in Sprinter days was via Birmingham New Street.
Steve Harris
Member
That is nothing new. It used to happen in the 1980's at Cambridge and this topic has been discussed before in another thread on RF UK.
Unfortunately in my opinion if passengers can't understand the difference between the 2, they need to educate themselves, as I'm not brainy but i know the difference between the 2 as i can read London Liverpool St and Liverpool Lime St.
Apparently Harwich used to have trains shown as going to "Liverpool Street" and "Liverpool L. Street", and this may have confused some Dutch visitors unfamiliar with our rail network.
Steve Harris
Member
As i said. It has already been discussed before in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-liverpool-street-be-renamed-if-so-to-what.160470/
Philip
On Moderation
An idea could be to run double 185s as portion workings from Nottingham or Sheffield and upon arriving at Piccadilly or Oxford Road, one half goes to Liverpool via Warrington and the other half to Bolton (and if capacity allows onwards to Preston and Blackpool). I'm sure I've read in the past about mention of direct Preston-Bolton-Sheffield services (not sure if as a proposal or something that happened years ago).
That still requires two separate services to go through the Deansgate bottleneck, plus introducing a new diesel service to Bolton or Blackpool won't be popular after all the disruption to put up the electrics.
Remember stations serving seaside destinations and ports don't have as much demand as they did in BR days, while airports have a lot more demand. So a service to Stansted Airport from Cambridge is probably a lot more useful to those in Cambridge than one to Blackpool.
Steve Harris
Member
Last edited:
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Given the DfT seems unable to resist franchise re-mapping exercises it seems inevitable that this Nottingham split is going to at least be attempted at some point. It doesn't have to be all bad news however. IME the quietest part of the current service is between Peterborough and Nottingham with many passengers from across East Anglia connecting into northbound ECML services. Some of these are heading for Yorkshire. I would therefore suggest that a future EMT Norwich-Nottingham service be extended to Leeds replacing the proposed Northern Connect service: this would provide better connectivity and avoid any need for Northern to be in Nottingham at all whereas EMT already go to Leeds. It could also reduce the need to pack quite so many people on to East Coast trains.
Except that it is a current franchise requirement for Northern to provide an hourly service that way. Given that Parkside East Curve is now an established passenger route removing services from it risks the need to go through a closure process. If the Chat Moss route is looking a little crowded then it is hardly a good idea to look at additional services using it. The issue only arises due to the timetabling constraints affecting the CLC route though if properly delivered the timetable actually works perfectly well. So no urgent need to re-route Liverpool-Sheffield services away from it.
Except that it is a current franchise requirement for Northern to provide an hourly service that way. Given that Parkside East Curve is now an established passenger route removing services from it risks the need to go through a closure process. If the Chat Moss route is looking a little crowded then it is hardly a good idea to look at additional services using it. The issue only arises due to the timetabling constraints affecting the CLC route though if properly delivered the timetable actually works perfectly well. So no urgent need to re-route Liverpool-Sheffield services away from it.
I would like to see the Norwich-Nottingham service to extend to Crewe, and replace the local Crewe-Derby stopper. Would provide a new direct link between Crewe and Nottingham, Peterborough and Norwich, and ease east/west connections from Wales and Warrington to the East Midlands
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,337
To me, involvement of DfT in anything brings to mind the words "brewery", "organise". "p*ss up", "couldn't", etc.. You wouldn't expect them to take much notice of passenger preferences. They seem to dream up silly ideas, insist that "they are always right" and leave the rest of us to endure the consequences.
If the route is to be split at Nottingham, I think Northern would be the better choice for the Liverpool - Nottingham secttion. Northern already operates class 158 and could take over 158s from EMT to maintain the existing seating capacity. Maybe some extra class 195s could be obtained as an alternative.
I find it hard to believe that any TOC would want to pay the cost of using 6 coach 185 formations (2 x 3 car) on this route, whilst using just 3 car 185s would lose over 100 standard class seats on each service.
If the route is to be split at Nottingham, I think Northern would be the better choice for the Liverpool - Nottingham secttion. Northern already operates class 158 and could take over 158s from EMT to maintain the existing seating capacity. Maybe some extra class 195s could be obtained as an alternative.
I find it hard to believe that any TOC would want to pay the cost of using 6 coach 185 formations (2 x 3 car) on this route, whilst using just 3 car 185s would lose over 100 standard class seats on each service.
This is all about Grayling/Dft finding something for the 185 fleet at Ardwick to do. They even acknowledge that in the consultation 65% wanted the Liverpool-Norwich to stay as it is, so I don’t think it’s about improving the service for users.
Places such as Chinley, Widnes, Liverpool South Parkway are only 4 car Platforms, could the 185’s be reformed into 4 car and 2 car sets ?
Places such as Chinley, Widnes, Liverpool South Parkway are only 4 car Platforms, could the 185’s be reformed into 4 car and 2 car sets ?
dk1
Veteran Member
Who apart from enthusiasts & pensioners would choose the X1 all the way from Norwich to Peterborough over the train?
dk1
Veteran Member
Can 185s run at SP speeds though? And why are GA going to give up a very lucrative path to Stansted?
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,932
185s cannot use any differentials as they are proper fat lads.
Leeds-Norwich could work very well but would the demand be sufficiently balanced across the journey, especially with a separate Liverpool to Nottingham service.
I didn't know the Northern EMU was a franchise requirement. The TPE Scotland service will surely be running via Bolton by then but who knows with Network Rail! It is 15 minutes faster which is a considerable saving and much needed.
Thats the sort of idea that would make a EMT regional fleet of all 158s appealing because there would be huge flexibility of choice of services and in timetabling.
The rumour on social media appears to be that TPE would use Mark Vs. If Northern took over the route then 158s would be adequate but 195s better. EMT also use 156s for the service because they have insufficient 158s therefore transferring enough 158s to run the service from December 2021 would cause other services to be downgraded while the intercity services will be stretched prior to the arrival of new stock. Its a little odd that the regional express opperator does not run a service between Liverpool and Sheffield and only has 1tph between Manchester and Sheffield. I am doubtful that the government will want to make any alterations to the Northern franchise agreement to add or remove services or rolling stock. It would be opening a huge can of worms!
Given that 185's can't run at the same speed in the Fens as the Sprinters my guess is that this is a way of increasing capacity on the route (i.e. pairs of trains on both halves of the existing service).
If it were needed I'd be tempted to look at splitting the pair of units at Ely so that both Cambridge and Norwich would have a direct service to Nottingham. I may even look at running it with three units turning a train at busy times, or if there were the paths more frequently (to remove the potential for quite so long a wait if the connection gets broken due to delays and increase the attractiveness of getting to the ECML).
If it were needed I'd be tempted to look at splitting the pair of units at Ely so that both Cambridge and Norwich would have a direct service to Nottingham. I may even look at running it with three units turning a train at busy times, or if there were the paths more frequently (to remove the potential for quite so long a wait if the connection gets broken due to delays and increase the attractiveness of getting to the ECML).
I don't know if it's still going ahead but there was supposed to be platform lengthening on the Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool line so that all stations served by semi-fasts can take 6 x 23m trains and all stations served only by stoppers can take 4 x 20m trains. 185s are getting SDO fitted. In the grand scheme of things Chinley is irrelevant - Northern can run a peak time Manchester to Hazel Grove to Chinley service using 769s if needed.
DfT might have no choice but to amend the rolling stock allocation for Northern if (as expected) GWR don't release any more 150s to Northern. They've already had to make an amend so that Northern get 769s instead of 319s as an interim measure but that interim measure might need to be changed to a permanent measure.
londonmidland
Established Member
In terms of the quality of the rolling stock, 185s are superior over 158s/156s in my opinion.
I regularly travel on the latter and right now I am on a 185 from Manchester Piccadilly to York.
I am really impressed with the quality of the refurbishment as well as large tables, comfortable seats, at seat plugs and free WiFi. Also decent sized luggage racks and overhead racks.
Even after the refurbishment of the 158s, I am not overly impressed. Especially with the spacing of the seats.
Of course there are lots of things to consider but in terms of comfort and quality, 185s win every time for me.
I regularly travel on the latter and right now I am on a 185 from Manchester Piccadilly to York.
I am really impressed with the quality of the refurbishment as well as large tables, comfortable seats, at seat plugs and free WiFi. Also decent sized luggage racks and overhead racks.
Even after the refurbishment of the 158s, I am not overly impressed. Especially with the spacing of the seats.
Of course there are lots of things to consider but in terms of comfort and quality, 185s win every time for me.
With both the EMT and ATW 158 refurbishments they've maximised the number of seats, while the TPE 185 layout minimises the number of seats. Presumably EMT and ATW thought if passenger numbers are rising, more seats are more important than tables, while TPE thought if we squeeze in too many seats the 185s will seem very much like commuter trains.
atraindriver
Member
<deleted>
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Unfortunately the level of overcrowding caused by the DfT's stubborn and incompetent refusal to allow their extension to 4 (or even 5) car units makes them look not like commuter trains but like a Tube train at Bank in the evening rush.
I used to use the Norwich-Liverpool service between Sheffield and Manchester. The TPE service was often cancelled and it's a useful service to alleviate the pressure off TPE.
I really don't know what the DfT are playing with TSR requirements recently. Everyone blames the TOCs, but the government and DfT have a lot to answer for.
They've ordered Northern to combine the Crewe to Manchester and Manchester to Liverpool into one service which doubles up as a long distance route and commuter service into both Manchester and Liverpool. The performance on this route to date has been a shambles and a total failure.
Yet they want to the replace the one long distance intercity service which actually works well and serve a purpose.
It's just madness...
I really don't know what the DfT are playing with TSR requirements recently. Everyone blames the TOCs, but the government and DfT have a lot to answer for.
They've ordered Northern to combine the Crewe to Manchester and Manchester to Liverpool into one service which doubles up as a long distance route and commuter service into both Manchester and Liverpool. The performance on this route to date has been a shambles and a total failure.
Yet they want to the replace the one long distance intercity service which actually works well and serve a purpose.
It's just madness...
Up_Tilt_390
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 923
I actually feel a bit disappointed in this announcement. I mean it's not for another three years, but it seems to me that Liverpool isn't as well served as it could be with regards to InterCity services. We get trains to London, Norwich, Birmingham, Scarborough and Newcastle, and soon getting Glasgow. It used to have Virgin CrossCountry services to places like Edinburgh, Portsmouth, Poole and Plymouth and that, but it seems only recently we're getting Scotland trains back. The Norwich service may not be practical for someone wanting to go to Norwich since it'll be quicker to actually go via London, but most journeys probably aren't end-to-end on our network, so it's still a good service for those going to Sheffield and Nottingham.
I don't think that is the case. They required Northern to run a stopper from the Airport to Lime St via Chat Moss and also required Northern to leave a path for North Wales services to either go to the Airport or Victoria. To satisfy the latter requirement Arriva decided to get rid of the all-stops Airport-Piccadilly shuttle (which they could have extended to Liverpool to meet the Chat Moss requirement) and added on calls to other Airport services and it was because of that decision that Arriva needed to extend the Crewe-Airport-Piccadilly service to Lime Street.
- Status