I raised my eyebrows at it I must admit. The Matlocks at one point ran to Birmingham and it didn't last long because they were constantly getting delayed. Can't see them keeping reservations either.
-
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 won by Abellio
- Thread starter InTheEastMids
- Start date
- Status
I raised my eyebrows at it I must admit. The Matlocks at one point ran to Birmingham and it didn't last long because they were constantly getting delayed. Can't see them keeping reservations either.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Killingworth
Established Member
Living beside the Hope Valley line and seeing the delays from both ends of the Liverpool-Nottingham and Cleethorpes-Manchester Airport routes I would share those concerns.
Manchester and Sheffield are bottlenecks that won't be an issue with the new route, but Derby may add another. Current westbound services from Norwich to Nottingham are generally quite reliable. It's from there that the troubles really start.
On routes with a service every 10/15 minutes it's inconvenient if one is cancelled. It's very different on routes with a service running hourly. Every time one is cancelled, or very late, other options are considered for the next journey.
The benefits to a few new longer distance travellers will require service performance resilience to avoid alienating existing users.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's clearly a concern and will depend on detailed timetabling. The Norwich gets to Nottingham sometime around xx30 and leaves at xx34, which isn't compatible with doing a journey to Matlock (1hr 6min) and back without a long layover somewhere. The 12min turnaround could be increased somewhat by scheduling the trains to pass a bit further north, and I think recent remodelling at Ambergate Junction saves a few seconds for Matlock trains too. But if it stays in the existing timings east of Nottingham then it looks like there will be some long dwell times there or at Derby - which will help with performance but not so good for through passengers.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
I think that’s a fair proposal, the only thing I would suggest is for Arriva Beds and Bucks to amend their existing Busway Route A timetable to serve Luton Airport Parkway in addition to Luton Airport/Luton Interchange as it already serves the airport 24/7 so might as well call at Parkway station and potentially get rid of the existing shuttle as the A route serves more destinations.
BR_Nick1980
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 8
If they did run the Norwich to/from Matlock it would be disastrous performance wise.
Matlock to Derby has historically always run well with any extension causing major problems. They did try it one year to Birmingham - half the time delays were so great it never got past Ambergate or even Derby!!
The Newark extension has worked though.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
I like the fact that Lincoln retains its direct link to Leicester (and not lose it as i originally thought). Grimsby gains not only Nottingham but also Leicester.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
They aren't actually useful as through services to Leicester though, considering they call at all stations between Loughborough and Leicester. Would've been nice to have seen that changed, but the service spec as set out by the DfT stipulated that the Leicester to Loughborough local service had to go to Nottingham, so that's what's happened.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
They may well 'call at all stations' between Loughborough and Leicester, but how many are you talking about ?. I can only think of 3 - Barrow on Soar, Sileby and Syston
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
They run on the slow lines between East Midlands Parkway and Leicester, so the journey time penalty is about 20 minutes compared to the fast services, that's more what I was getting at.
cactustwirly
Established Member
But a sprinter can't really run on the fast lines as they have a 75mph top speed
The sprinter is overtaken by the fast service from Nottingham. It is effectively a Leicester-Nottingham local service that is extended to Lincoln for efficient unit utilisation, this is since 2004/5 when the ‘local’ timetable was decimated by Central Trains under instruction by DfT. It has no need to run on the fast lines as the slows are up to 75mph.
Anyone travelling from the Newark side of Nottingham to Leicester will be advised by a journey planner to change at Nottingham, as it’s 15 minutes quicker.
You will find very few onboard doing a cross Nottingham journey (perhaps to Beeston at most). There is simply no demand even after 12 years of it running as is.
In my opinion Matlock to Lincoln would be more useful, as Derby has a much greater demand to/from the Lincoln route compared to Leicester… which could be best serviced with a Leicester-Newark all stops shuttle instead.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
But a 100mph Turbostar could, which is what will be replacing the 15x units anyway...
Effectively I would put the Leicester to Loughborough local service back to the shuttle it used to be and instead run the Lincoln service fast, that way Leicester gets a third fast train per hour to Nottingham, and the train would be more competitive for the Leicester/Loughborough to Newark & Lincoln journeys. The fact that they spent the money making the A46 a dual carriageway a few years ago appears to suggest there's scope for an improved rail service along the corridor too.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see this happen. Which would be welcome (albeit not as welcome as a Derby service instead!).
Indeed the following constraints are in place, perhaps forcing the hand:
- The Invitation to Tender specifies that services to/from Lincoln must traverse Newark Flat Crossing in one parallel movement with each other. Plus all timing allowances and dwells must be kept to a minimum.
- The Timetable Planning Rules require a minimum 15 minute turnaround at Grimsby Town, plus a minimum 10 minute turnaround at Leicester.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
Well, there's a third constraint which you've missed which I why I think it won't happen, which is that Syston/Sileby and Barrow must retain the direct Nottingham service. This being despite the fact the vast majority of the demand from those stations is to/from Leicester, and off peak they carry fresh air between Loughborough and Nottingham anyway. I rather suspect the workaround will just be a lengthy dwell at Nottingham to make the paths fit either side.
I just assumed a Leicester-Nottingham stopper on the slow lines would be a given with what’s been published.
Extended dwells and excessive timing allowances are forbidden in the ITT, so I doubt lengthily waits at Nottingham will happen.
However… this is really all just speculation and messing around with red crayons based upon what Modern Railways have published. Abellio themselves haven’t officially declared anything yet.
So I guess we will have to wait and see.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Another constraint is that some of the stations only have platforms on one slow line and not both as I recall.
bunnahabhain
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,070
There's quite a healthy demand of travel between the Ivanhoe shacks and Nottingham. It is a shame somewhat that we didn't get a separate semi fast to Grimsby and a standalone Nottingham to Leicester local service. Perhaps had it become a through service to Birmingham before TfWM denied us access to New Street it may have changed the financials enough to warrant the addition service.
EMR is no longer involved with Liverpool, but
EMR sets a new route from Derby to Crew.
When it is extended to Chester, can the new route capture North Wales passengers like Holyhead?
Furthermore, if it could be extended to Liverpool via the Birkenhead Central System, could it be a new major route from Derby to the Greater Liverpool region?
EMR sets a new route from Derby to Crew.
When it is extended to Chester, can the new route capture North Wales passengers like Holyhead?
Furthermore, if it could be extended to Liverpool via the Birkenhead Central System, could it be a new major route from Derby to the Greater Liverpool region?
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
New route from Derby to Crewe??? It’s an existing route and extended to Nottingham (meaning it will be Nottingham to Crewe). No extension to Chester as far as I am aware.
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
No because it would be too slow, and it isn't being extended to Chester anyway.
Certainly, because it is slow with the sprinter that stops at all stations,
Can I use the Class 22X with only Stoke-on-Trent, Crewe, and Chester stopped?
sad...
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Not until 2022 at the earliest. But is there any demand for such a service?
Is there no demand from Midland to Holyhead?
This is "Spectrative Ideas", right? I'm sorry.
But when will Abellia give details?
Is it not announced until the new cabinet is launched?
Last edited:
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Your guess is as good as mine
Why would we use 125mph DMUs on a service that can achieve nowhere near that? We've got the likes of CrossCountry who are dying for longer and more rolling stock, and there's a great shortage of 125mph DMUs other than new builds for them...
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
Not enough to require a direct service. It's quite possible to make connections at Birmingham or Crewe in any case.
Derby to Liverpool via Birkenhead is not possible- 3rd rail, tunnels, exhaust, clearance, etc.
In the past the fastest and most convenient route from Sheffield(and therefore Derby) to Holyhead was by changing once at Tamworth.
Lack of connections and a price differential makes this less attractive.
Holyhead foot passenger traffic is a shadow of what it was.
However more Crewe/North Wales services would be very welcome.
Let's not get distracted by too much speculation on potential future routes that could be part of the EMR franchise. This thread is about what is actually happening or, at most, rumours about what is happening.
TheManOnThe172
Member
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 344
Can I ask anyone who has read the Modern Railways article, what is the status of the reported future Norwich-Matlock service? I realise that the Norwich-Liverpool split is set to happen after the franchise change: assuming that I could find others concerned at the impact on Derwent Valley service reliability, is this a done deal that we are stuck with, a proposal that there is some point in trying to fight, or a bit of speculation that is too early to get heated about?
- Status