-
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 Norwich service to be split at Nottingham
- Thread starter Chester1
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But they do lock 4 doors out at Dore, with only the 4th carriage opening in the back set? Surely by your logic they must be run with 2 guards, and actually I've heard cases where they've run through due to not having a 2nd guard, so it must be a requirement here too?
Solent&Wessex
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,685
As I said, the method of work for Mossley does say you need 2 guards if you are locking out 4 doors. Up to 3 is 1 guard. 4 doors is 2 guards.
The Method of Work dated 2016 for Dore does not seem to say this, just saying to lock out 4 sets of doors. There is no mention of a requirement to have a 2nd guard in that instance (or anywhere else on that route) The 2016 MOW may have been superseded, I am not sure. The requirement for a 2nd Guard only came about in May last year for Slaithwaite (currently not served by 6 car trains) and Mossley.
Solent&Wessex
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,685
Having said all that it is fairly academic anyway as the switching on of C-ASDO in around 4 weeks negates the need for locking out doors manually and a 2nd guard.
It was. 2 Guards are required for all stations served by TPE requiring 4 doors to be locked out, it wasn't just a North route thing. Same applied at Barnetby until Network Rail extended Platform 2/routed 6 car trains into Platform 1.
70014IronDuke
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 3,699
"no doubt". Of course, no government department would try to pull wool over anyone's eyes, would they?
My only thought is that, if there were "no doubt", why can't the DfT release this evidence?
I would imagine the data is commercially confidential for the train operators involved.
Also the selection of data provided is really open to interpretation. Do you
A) Only provide data for journeys possible directly on the current service (e.g.Ely to Stockport), when this will omit a large amount of North West<>Anglia journeys for which the EMT service may be one of several routeing option (e.g. from Cambridge)
B) Provide data for all Anglia<>North West type journeys, even though the EMT service may be a theoretical, but unatractive, option. E.g. Bishop's Stortford to Liverpool.
A) Would over-egg the EMT service, but B) Might under-egg it to the point of being misleading. Where is the balance struck between the two?
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wonder if it was due to passengers who realised they weren't going to be able to get off pulling the cord or the egress?
They were fools to order non-gangwayed units. None of this would have been an issue if they had.
The sense is that this proposed change is negative for numerous reasons.
From my personal perspective as someone who has often used this EMT service between Sheffield and Warrington Central over the last 7 years, it's a backwards step from a competition viewpoint. I used to get this EMT service from Sheffield to Manchester as the advance fares were much cheaper than TPE.
This time last year, Warrington Central had three operators competiting against one another - Northern, TPE & EMT. In a few years there will only be one.
How is that good for competition? It's a regressive step but then this is Whitehall and the DfT we're dealing with so perhaps with shouldn't be surprised.
From my personal perspective as someone who has often used this EMT service between Sheffield and Warrington Central over the last 7 years, it's a backwards step from a competition viewpoint. I used to get this EMT service from Sheffield to Manchester as the advance fares were much cheaper than TPE.
This time last year, Warrington Central had three operators competiting against one another - Northern, TPE & EMT. In a few years there will only be one.
How is that good for competition? It's a regressive step but then this is Whitehall and the DfT we're dealing with so perhaps with shouldn't be surprised.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Not again.
The competition is the car. There is no point in petty spats between TOCs over fewer than 10% of passenger journeys, just like bus companies have this bad habit of being more bothered about spatting with each other than getting the cars that are holding them up off the road. The TOCs should act at one to get all the cars off the Snake Pass. With Manchester-Sheffield in particular you have a golden opportunity to take nearly all the traffic from the roads because the road is so awful. (OK, it's a fun, scenic "driver's road" if you enjoy driving and aren't in a rush, but for purely utility driving it's slow, tiring and not something I'd want to do on a daily basis even if I do enjoy it as a way across to the M1 when not in a hurry). Yet they prat around with heavily overcrowded short DMUs and scare all the drivers off.
Using something like the Mk5s seems an excellent idea - a bit of extra capacity and a "proper train" with good capacity.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
The competition is primarily the car, yes, but competition within the railway is important to keep fares reasonable and to thereby ensure that the railway stays a reasonable competition to the car. Imagine how much worse Virgin's fares would be to Birmingham if they didn't have to compete with Chiltern, for instance, for off-peak passengers. I can't imagine they'd be selling Advance for dirt cheap or that they'd have (re)introduced a Super Off-Peak fare.
And put it another way - I can't imagine East Midlands Trains would be charging the insane through fares they charge for the likes of Wellingborough if there was an (open-access?) competitor.
Last edited:
The Snake isn't the problem as much as Mottram Moor and the A57 into Manchester, both of which are absolutely dire! However, prices are still important as people will weigh up price vs comfort vs time when deciding which mode to take, and currently the railway is lacking in all three (road is lacking in price and time these days too of course!)
Killingworth
Established Member
Hear, hear!
Killingworth
Established Member
Competition between Sheffield and Piccadilly will depend on where you start and finish your total journey. I've never driven to a central Manchester location. I live 10 minutes walk from Dore through woods down a steep slope , but sometimes take the car if weather is bad and park near the station (car park usually full by 7.45).
East Midlands offer two early morning trains on which fares are lowest. TPE have offered a cheaper advance fare on their 6.14, but it is starting to fill up. If I go out of the peak I might get a cheaper advance Northern fare. If price is the issue flexibility of time can bring big savings.
The trouble with all these fares is that they can be train specific and the trains on this line can be late, delayed or cancelled. When that happens passengers try to catch a service from another company from a different platform (not a problem at Dore with only one, although that has different problems). The result is unpredictable additional overcrowding.
Speaking to a Northern guard this week he felt they were now overselling cheap advance fares on some trains that are becoming overloaded. That reinforces the view of most users of the line that lack of supply is surpressing demand.
East Midlands offer two early morning trains on which fares are lowest. TPE have offered a cheaper advance fare on their 6.14, but it is starting to fill up. If I go out of the peak I might get a cheaper advance Northern fare. If price is the issue flexibility of time can bring big savings.
The trouble with all these fares is that they can be train specific and the trains on this line can be late, delayed or cancelled. When that happens passengers try to catch a service from another company from a different platform (not a problem at Dore with only one, although that has different problems). The result is unpredictable additional overcrowding.
Speaking to a Northern guard this week he felt they were now overselling cheap advance fares on some trains that are becoming overloaded. That reinforces the view of most users of the line that lack of supply is surpressing demand.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think a very large number of routes in the North West including basically all of both North and South TPE probably have this issue. I reckon the 5-car sets will be as full as the 3-car ones are now within a few months.
With traffic congestion as bad as ever and young people increasingly declining to learn to drive, I think we may have a "perfect storm" on our hands which will need South East-style train lengths up North within only a small number of years - and if that can be delivered the possibility of services being far less of an economic basket case, so there is an upside.
As for Advances they should in my view not be sold on any train where there are expected to be standing passengers. But plenty of TOCs are taking the mick - LNR Trent Valley services are the most obvious one.
Old Yard Dog
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 1,483
Not impressed with this decision which has clearly been made for the operational benefit of the franchisee not the passenger.
The only plus point is that hopefully it will allow the Liverpool - Nottingham section to run later in the evening as there will be no need for most or all units to return to Nottingham.
The only plus point is that hopefully it will allow the Liverpool - Nottingham section to run later in the evening as there will be no need for most or all units to return to Nottingham.
Can’t see too many Nottingham crews being too unhappy about not having to do that ECS from Nottingham to Liverpool in the very early hours. Loss of work and variety is never a good thing, but that particular job must be a bad one from a fatigue point of view. Hopefully it will create work in Liverpool or Manchester too when it moves over.
rishtonlad
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 73
I have used the service as the Norwich end due to having family in Norwich. There always seems to be few number of passengers travelling across Nottingham going off the seat reservations.
tbtc
Veteran Member
For me, looking at the seat reservations feels a bit like trying to monitor wild animals by analysing their droppings. A good idea in theory but easy to over-rely on some data.
People are less likely to reserve seats for short everyday journeys (e.g. Warrington to Manchester/ Liverpool) and significantly more likely to reserve seats for rare longer distance journeys *(e.g. all the way through to Norwich).
(there's also the issue that a significant number of seat reservations are never used, since they are given away for free, there's no reason not to take one)
Arguments about competition always need to be seen in the context of similar arguments about reliability/disruptions/ co-ordination etc.
Having three different TOCs running through the Hope Valley might be great for people buying cheaper tickets but it also means that there's less incentive for TOCs to co-ordinate services (e.g. the two "fast" services leave Piccadilly at xx19 and xx42 rather than a straight half-hourly service), there's less resilience in terms of being able to cope with disruption (compared to one TOC running all fast services with doubled up 185s, when a delayed/truncated service can bounce back into service much easier), it's more confusion for passengers.
Compare and contrast Hope Valley with the TPE route through Marsden - there you currently have co-ordinated services, you have better stock utilisation (e.g. a westbound service from Newcastle may become an eastbound service to Middlesbrough), you have staff able to work different departures, so the line can cope with disruption.
Meanwhile, with the Hope Valley line, there's not much of a "Plan-B" when the EMT service is delayed/disrupted.
People on here seem to love "resilience" when it's an excuse for re-opening some backwater line (that might be handy for diversions a couple of weekends a year) but less bothered about resilience on current lines.
People are less likely to reserve seats for short everyday journeys (e.g. Warrington to Manchester/ Liverpool) and significantly more likely to reserve seats for rare longer distance journeys *(e.g. all the way through to Norwich).
(there's also the issue that a significant number of seat reservations are never used, since they are given away for free, there's no reason not to take one)
Arguments about competition always need to be seen in the context of similar arguments about reliability/disruptions/ co-ordination etc.
Having three different TOCs running through the Hope Valley might be great for people buying cheaper tickets but it also means that there's less incentive for TOCs to co-ordinate services (e.g. the two "fast" services leave Piccadilly at xx19 and xx42 rather than a straight half-hourly service), there's less resilience in terms of being able to cope with disruption (compared to one TOC running all fast services with doubled up 185s, when a delayed/truncated service can bounce back into service much easier), it's more confusion for passengers.
Compare and contrast Hope Valley with the TPE route through Marsden - there you currently have co-ordinated services, you have better stock utilisation (e.g. a westbound service from Newcastle may become an eastbound service to Middlesbrough), you have staff able to work different departures, so the line can cope with disruption.
Meanwhile, with the Hope Valley line, there's not much of a "Plan-B" when the EMT service is delayed/disrupted.
People on here seem to love "resilience" when it's an excuse for re-opening some backwater line (that might be handy for diversions a couple of weekends a year) but less bothered about resilience on current lines.
Well I mean it's also a benefit for the majority of passengers on the route who might have a more resilient and reliable service at the expense of a minority who will have to change at Nottingham. Plus it seems quite likely (though admittedly this is speculation) that passengers at least between Nottingham and Liverpool will benefit from modern 6-car trains. The operational benefits are nice to have but lets not pretend that there aren't passenger benefits as well.
kevconnor
Member
For me the current EMT Nottingham - Liverpool route has more resilience than most. It's a credit to the drivers/conductors and planners
The standard route is Liverpool - Manchester (via CLC line) - Stockport - Sheffield - Chesterfield - Nottingham (Via Alfreton)
I know route knowledge is often graded but but through the different grades there is route knowledge to cover diversions via
Nottingham - Chesterfield via Derby
Chesterfield - Sheffield via Beighton
Chesterfield - Hope Valley via Dore South curve
Hope Valley - Manchester Piccadilly via New Mills
Manchester - Piccadilly - Liverpool Lime Street via Chat Moss
That is a fair amount of resilience
londonmidland
Established Member
Could the single line at (Alsager?) cope with an extra path per hour? Also what effects would a 100mph DMU have on pathing between Crewe and Weaver Junction if it was going Liverpool?
Killingworth
Established Member
Until it's finally confirmed it still might be, but not via Stoke. Sheffield Chamber of Commerce were floating the idea of the Sheffield - Nottingham section alternating 2 hourly for each. I'm not convinced that would work from a marketing viewpoint but there aren't enough spare paths Sheffield - Nottingham to add another hourly service.
Nottingham - Liverpool via Stoke is not currently on the option list, but it could be.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The single line is a couple of miles into Crewe itself - it's double before Alsager. Another problem would be getting a path northbound across Crewe. I doubt anything like this would be possible before HS2 Phase 2.
Only one? Are EMT eventually going via newton le willows?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think this refers to the possibility of what is now EMT going to Northern instead. Personally I think TPE is more likely because the focus will be on getting a single operator for Manchester-Sheffield fast trains even if that increases the number of operators on the rest of the route.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
I would say the Derby to Crewe would be subsumed into the Norwich to Nottingham service and joined at Derby, So only one service there. However getting across Crewe seems to be a far greater challenge.
As it happens I could see a value in a service between Norwich and Sheffield and Nottingham and Liverpool. However whether there is sufficient capacity between Chesterfield and Dore and perhaps more critically between Dore and Sheffield is another matter.
TheSel
Member
If Dore - Sheffield is that much of a pinch point, you could potentially operate either (or both) via Barrow Hill and Woodhouse. This already happens to a limited degree.
This actually strikes me as fairly sensible, it's not much longer and does relieve the overcrowded Sheaf corridoor. Only issue is the capacity in the North throat at Sheffield (and possibly the Darnall line now that's 2tph as well).
- Status