Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

Bevan Price said:

But does anyone here trust TPE to ensure that they always use 6-car 185s on Liverpool/Manchester - Nottingham. (Excluding any rare train failure occurrences, when a short formation is inevitable)

Personally, I now think that if they really insist on splitting services at Nottingham, the best option would be for EM to retain the Nottingham - Liverpool part, and for Greater Anglia to take over the Nottingham - Norwich part.

Click to expand...

py_megapixel said:

No, but I trust EM even less. EM 158s have to be swapped around onto lots of routes. Once the Nova program is complete the 185s will only be in use for South TPE services. Plus, there is less capacity on a double 158 than a double 185. And given the frequency of shortforming of the current Norwich services, I doubt there is enough stock to run triple 158s.

What reason would there be to run with 3 cars when there is an abundance of rolling stock and they can coupled to make 6?

Click to expand...

Members who work for TPE and rail media have indicated that if TPE take over the route then it will be run by Mark V sets. That would mean Airport - Middlesbrough being run by double 185s instead.

Grumpy Git said:

That and a TOC who employs train crew with an obligation to work Sundays might be a start.

Click to expand...

That will be EMR within months...

Bletchleyite said:

Once again, access to Ringway for a week in the sun once a year is not a basis on which to plan the North West's entire rail network.

Click to expand...

TBF airport connections are a business thing. Also a bit like hotel pools - the importance of their existence for marketing is out of proportion to their actual use.

Meerkat said:

TBF airport connections are a business thing. Also a bit like hotel pools - the importance of their existence for marketing is out of proportion to their actual use.

Click to expand...

Heathrow Express might disagree.

I'm trying to be sensible. I could spend £120+ on a return taxi every time I need to use the airport, I get it back on expenses, so why shouldn't I? I think its vital to use the public service that is there (at a fifth of the cost), but I know many who wouldn't "put-up" with the hassle.

Grumpy Git said:

Heathrow Express might disagree.

I'm trying to be sensible. I could spend £120+ on a return taxi every time I need to use the airport, I get it back on expenses, so why shouldn't I? I think its vital to use the public service that is there (at a fifth of the cost), but I know many who wouldn't "put-up" with the hassle.

Click to expand...

The hotel pool analogy is that people will select the hotel with a pool over the one without, but barely any of those people will use it.
When marketing Liverpool as a place for big businesses to invest direct train links to a major international airport are fairly essential, even if the executives making that call will probably jump in taxis. Need the airport link on the “World Connected” slide in the deck......

Meerkat said:

The hotel pool analogy is that people will select the hotel with a pool over the one without, but barely any of those people will use it.
When marketing Liverpool as a place for big businesses to invest direct train links to a major international airport are fairly essential, even if the executives making that call will probably jump in taxis. Need the airport link on the “World Connected” slide in the deck......

Click to expand...

This point is massively overlooked by rail enthusiasts. The political pressure for services to the Airport happens for a reason. Fortunately the Airport station is at capacity and there won't be funding available for an expansion so there won't be additional Airport services even if Castlefield capacity is increased. My preference for a third Hope Valley express service would be Northern Liverpool to Sheffield with 6 coach 195s. If the route was passed on at a later date it would allow the 195s to be reshuffled into a uniform fleet of 3 coaches.

Meerkat said:

The hotel pool analogy is that people will select the hotel with a pool over the one without, but barely any of those people will use it.

Click to expand...

Another analogy: In 1999, Alan Yentob - then controller of BBC2 - looked at viewing figures for the sheepdog-trial programme One Man and His Dog and decided that there were too few viewers to justify the slot and chose not to re-commission it. Result - uproar: subsequent research apparently identified a lot of people who didn't actually watch the programme, but felt it important that it should be there in the schedule for them not to watch.

Chester1 said:

This point is massively overlooked by rail enthusiasts. The political pressure for services to the Airport happens for a reason. Fortunately the Airport station is at capacity and there won't be funding available for an expansion so there won't be additional Airport services even if Castlefield capacity is increased. My preference for a third Hope Valley express service would be Northern Liverpool to Sheffield with 6 coach 195s. If the route was passed on at a later date it would allow the 195s to be reshuffled into a uniform fleet of 3 coaches.

Click to expand...

The political point is even further sharpened in the fact that the councils of Greater Manchester own the group running the airport, and so getting as many punters to it as easily is possible is a very high priority for Manchester Airport Group, and those councils looking for revenue from the venture. As far as the North West's transport ambitions go, Manchester Airport is right there in the middle. How does anyone imagine the Ordsall Chord got the nod, even though the other infrastructural improvements to go with it didn't?

Ask Mayor Burnham about that.....

the Ordsall Chord has made matters worse for Liverpool passengers going to Manchester Airport from Liverpool in my particular case (i.e via the CLC Warrington Central route).

I have done some more reading around this and it does not appear to be an EMT or their succesor EMR's decision.

Castlefield has been designated 'congested infrastructre' the definition of which is the infrastructure cannot meet the demands of the services scheduled to cross it. In May/June EMT were instructed by the DfT to renew/rollover their path access agreement with Network Rail for 12 months to ensure continuity for the replacement operator.

Network Rail have then refused the application (even though it is identical to the existing setup) specifically for paths beyond Manchester Piccadilly, due to the Castlefield corridor congestion. Arriva Rail North appear to have lodged a complaint as part of the consultation to grant these paths as they are unable to obtain paths for the new services they are trying to bring in through over the same section of track.

According to documents on the ORR's website detailing the back and forth:

Tim Write of Network Rail - 7 June 2019 said:

Network Rail, whilst noting that no changes are sought, does not support firm rights for any train services which involve the use of the section of route between Castlefield Junction and Manchester Piccadilly East Junction. Network Rail notes the declaration of congested infrastructure between Castlefield Junction and Manchester Piccadilly East Junction inclusive as notified to ORR in its letter of 16th April 2019.

Click to expand...

Lanita Masi of East Midlands Trains - 20 June 2019 said:

As acknowledged in NR’s letter, EMT is not seeking additional services or access rights through this application. With regard to the issue of Castlefield Corridor, we would expect NR to be fair and consistent with the approach taken with Northern and TPE in which NR took their existing services in May 2019 as a baseline and insisted on contingent rights to apply only for additional paths over the Castlefield Corridor. It is in this spirit that EMT believes the Declaration of Congested Infrastructure was intended and EMT strongly believes that the continued status of its existing services (as Firm Rights) should not be disadvantaged in this circumstance.

Click to expand...

So despite the fact everybody agrees that there is nothing in EMT (now EMR)'s application that is new, due to the TPE services from Victoria having been granted "Firm Rights" without the infrastructure being able to cope, and EMT (now EMR) being in the unfortunate position that it is now their time to renew access rights, it is EMR that will loose their rights to provide a service. So it does appear that East Midlands Railway, the population of Warrington, Widnes and the wider Liverpool City region are the ones being penalised for the misguided* projects that have led us to this point. It is clear from those responses that any culling of this service beyond Manchester will not result in a replacement, entering the section of track between Castlefield Junction and Manchester Piccadilly East as that too would fall foul of the same requirement to negotiate a path across congested infrastructure.

Oh what a wonderful joined up railway we have. I have absolutely every sympathy for those from Warrington, Widnes and Liverpool who will no doubt be feeling like this is a right stich up to prioritise 2 tph from the North East to Manchester Airport rather than provide the simple basic connectivity these populations have built their lives around.

*It is worth remembering at this point that the increase in congestion occured when the long distance Transpennine Express services were re-routed via the new Ordsall chord due to the insistance that having reached Manchester Victoria, their western terminus must be Manchester Airport rather than one of the other potential western Termini (Blackpool / Chester for example). It is also worth remembering just how long the various ministers in charge of the DfT have been sitting on the TWA Order that would undoubtedly provide some relief to the congestion in this corridor.

I might as well travel Avanti West Coast to Euston and use the vastly superior route map and availability (often hourly flights) of Heathrow and let my customers and the environment take-up the extra cost.

The Pendolino service does at least always seem more reliable than Northern, TPE or EMT.

More direct flights would almost certainly offset the extra time taken to get to and from Heathrow? Also reduces the chance of "lost" luggage when using direct flights.............. now where is that AWC timetable?

No wonder Manchester Airport has terrible schedules (BA abandoned it years ago). The mob in Westminster couldn't give two figs about us frozen northerners.

bunnahabhain said:

There is a fairly large turnover of passengers at Manchester, it isn't unusual to have less than two dozen travelling from East of Stockport to West of Manchester. It is busier of course during the peak time or if you travel on one of the busier off peak services (0957/1057 ex Norwich, 0951/1051 ex Liverpool).

Click to expand...

So if those boarding between Lime Street and Warrington are mostly getting off at Manchester Ox Road or Piccadilly, how are they meant to get there if this service is taken, given how busy the existing services are between Liverpool and Manchester?

One of the reasons why many get off in Manchester are to change for services to Leeds, York or Scarborough which was a service already taken away from the CLC recently for South Liverpool, Widnes or Warringtonpassengers, or for those needing a straight train to Piccadilly from Lime Street..

When did the TPE services stop using the CLC?

Now I understand why they never put up OLE but have built a new station at Warrington West............... an oblivious precursor to closure!

Grumpy Git said:

When did the TPE services stop using the CLC?

Click to expand...

May 2018 timetable change, when both the Northern and Transpennine timetables went into meltdown and have never really recovered.

Grumpy Git said:

When did the TPE services stop using the CLC?

Click to expand...

Last year they took the Scarborough service off us.

So if this goes as well the only trains going to South Parkway will be Manchester trains from Northern as well as whatever turns up from LNR. Yet Manchester Airport is served by the north east and other TPE via Ordsall Chord. It's the usual stitch up.

Not that the TPE can get their trains to run anyway. Farce

Off topic, but does anyone think there is any political interference at play here?

Afterall, it did take HMG several months longer to approve the completion of the new Liverpool Royal hospital than it did the one in Birmingham, which was in exactly the same state of flux after the Carillion debacle. There are many more potential Tory voters in the West Midlands!

Given that a lot of luggage laiden passengers from the Yorkshire direction do seem to continue to the airport, I wonder whether it would improve things to revert these to the old route and reverse via Piccadilly.

Yes, I know the switch was supposed to generate some extra paths, but at least trains can wait out of the way in a bay platform while waiting for a path East or Southwards.

Grumpy Git said:

Still reduces my options to get to the airport by at least 33%.

Click to expand...

i always fly out of John Lennon, use Manchester as a last resort.

frodshamfella said:

i always fly out of John Lennon, use Manchester as a last resort.

Click to expand...

Me too whenever possible, but only really an option if going to Ireland or the Netherlands and the fact point to point airlines (Easyjet / Ryanair) don't facilitate through luggage means its a non-starter.

The short lived KLM service to Amsterdam was stopped because Manchester was losing traffic to it and cried foul apparently.

It really gets my goat that somewhere like Germany can have great services from both Munich and Frankfurt (and to a lesser extent Dusseldorf) with their national carrier, but we are all expected to shuttle to the south east of England.

I'll stop before I'm moderated (probably too late anyway)?

yorksrob said:

Given that a lot of luggage laiden passengers from the Yorkshire direction do seem to continue to the airport, I wonder whether it would improve things to revert these to the old route and reverse via Piccadilly.

Yes, I know the switch was supposed to generate some extra paths, but at least trains can wait out of the way in a bay platform while waiting for a path East or Southwards.

Click to expand...

Alternatively you could install 4 lifts between the platforms (1, 2&3, 4&5, 6&7) and the mid platform bridge and replace the reversal of the Transpennine services with a half hourly or better shuttle service to the Airport just like is done for Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, running from a dedicated Platform 12. It would massively increase reliability for everybody across the North of England, could be done with existing excess EMUs and would be benefitial to anyone coming to Manchester airport from across the whole country not just the handful that arrive via the route through Stalybridge.

In fact given the airport owning company is the biggest gainer out of direct services to their train station. They could run this service with dedicated liveried rolling stock for easy identification and the benefit of their customers.

notlob.divad said:

Alternatively you could install 4 lifts between the platforms (1, 2&3, 4&5, 6&7) and the mid platform bridge and replace the reversal of the Transpennine services with a half hourly or better shuttle service to the Airport just like is done for Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, running from a dedicated Platform 12. It would massively increase reliability for everybody across the North of England, could be done with existing excess EMUs and would be benefitial to anyone coming to Manchester airport from across the whole country not jsut the handful that arrive via the route through Stalybridge.

Click to expand...

If you come-up with any more good ideas like that you'll get banned.

It would also improve the health of the station staff at Manchester Airport by not having to breathe diesel fumes.

Grumpy Git said:

Me too whenever possible, but only really an option if going to Ireland or the Netherlands and the fact point to point airlines (Easyjet / Ryanair) don't facilitate through luggage means its a non-starter.

The short lived KLM service to Amsterdam was stopped because Manchester was losing traffic to it and cried foul apparently.

It really gets my goat that somewhere like Germany can have great services from both Munich and Frankfurt (and to a lesser extent Dusseldorf) with their national carrier, but we are all expected to shuttle to the south east of England.

I'll stop before I'm moderated (probably too late anyway)?

Click to expand...

I do agree.btw

notlob.divad said:

I have done some more reading around this and it does not appear to be an EMT or their succesor EMR's decision.

Castlefield has been designated 'congested infrastructre' the definition of which is the infrastructure cannot meet the demands of the services scheduled to cross it. In May/June EMT were instructed by the DfT to renew/rollover their path access agreement with Network Rail for 12 months to ensure continuity for the replacement operator.

Network Rail have then refused the application (even though it is identical to the existing setup) specifically for paths beyond Manchester Piccadilly, due to the Castlefield corridor congestion. Arriva Rail North appear to have lodged a complaint as part of the consultation to grant these paths as they are unable to obtain paths for the new services they are trying to bring in through over the same section of track.

According to documents on the ORR's website detailing the back and forth.

Click to expand...

I believe you have unlocked the issue. The complaint by Northern was being disadvantaged by the grant of firm rights over the Castlefield corridor. The symbol on P21 of Annex A in the supplemental agreement was intriguing since it is not one MSWord can do easily. Now we know that the argument was about firm rights so it would appear to be the case that Form P and the Annex differ only in that the Liverpool to Norwich service will operate on contingent rights between Liverpool and Piccadilly from the Principal Change Date in calendar year2020, December 2020. The firm rights terminating at Piccadilly from that date, hence the "chain link" symbol to represent firm in the note, whilst the physical termination of the service remains Lime Street.

So the bottom line is there will be no loss of service between Piccadilly and Lime St next year (the next change being the franchise change of the route I guess). There will also be the extra late evening services mentioned on the ORR Form P between Nottingham and Piccadilly.

Confused52 said:

I believe you have unlocked the issue. The complaint by Northern was being disadvantaged by the grant of firm rights over the Castlefield corridor. The symbol on P21 of Annex A in the supplemental agreement was intriguing since it is not one MSWord can do easily. Now we know that the argument was about firm rights so it would appear to be the case that Form P and the Annex differ only in that the Liverpool to Norwich service will operate on contingent rights between Liverpool and Piccadilly from the Principal Change Date in calendar year2020, December 2020. The firm rights terminating at Piccadilly from that date, hence the "chain link" symbol to represent firm in the note, whilst the physical termination of the service remains Lime Street.

So the bottom line is there will be no loss of service between Piccadilly and Lime St next year (the next change being the franchise change of the route I guess). There will also be the extra late evening services mentioned on the ORR Form P between Nottingham and Piccadilly.

Click to expand...

But will it run to Warrington/Widnes/South Parkway?

Confused52 said:

I believe you have unlocked the issue. The complaint by Northern was being disadvantaged by the grant of firm rights over the Castlefield corridor. The symbol on P21 of Annex A in the supplemental agreement was intriguing since it is not one MSWord can do easily. Now we know that the argument was about firm rights so it would appear to be the case that Form P and the Annex differ only in that the Liverpool to Norwich service will operate on contingent rights between Liverpool and Piccadilly from the Principal Change Date in calendar year2020, December 2020. The firm rights terminating at Piccadilly from that date, hence the "chain link" symbol to represent firm in the note, whilst the physical termination of the service remains Lime Street.

So the bottom line is there will be no loss of service between Piccadilly and Lime St next year (the next change being the franchise change of the route I guess). There will also be the extra late evening services mentioned on the ORR Form P between Nottingham and Piccadilly.

Click to expand...

The only question raised by that in my mind is why would 4 trains per day have firm rights and the rest be contingent?

gazzaa2 said:

So if those boarding between Lime Street and Warrington are mostly getting off at Manchester Ox Road or Piccadilly, how are they meant to get there if this service is taken, given how busy the existing services are between Liverpool and Manchester?

One of the reasons why many get off in Manchester are to change for services to Leeds, York or Scarborough which was a service already taken away from the CLC recently for South Liverpool, Widnes or Warringtonpassengers, or for those needing a straight train to Piccadilly from Lime Street..

Click to expand...

Because most passengers are travelling to Manchester or suburban stations in Greater Manchester. Very few actually use the EMR service to go to Leeds or York because the connection doesn't make.

frodshamfella said:

Where has this weird idea that People from the Liverpool region don' t go to anywhere but Manchester, bizare !! And how about people arriving ? Tourists , VFR , they just come from Manchester too then , really !!?

Click to expand...

It's come from personal observation of passenger behaviour on a service that's been established in more or less its present form for over a quarter of a century now.

Note I did *not* say there was no Long Distance demand for visitors etc. to Liverpool.

What I said was that the Liverpool-Norwich through service is no longer suiting those passengers' needs, with those passenger seeming now to express preference to moving to other, faster routes and accepting an extra change for the journey time benefit it brings out. This is (anecdotally) evidenced by the relatively low proportion of cross-Manchester demand on the Liverpool-Norwich service.

It's increasing becoming a through service for the sake of a through service, without anybody checking whether the L-N service is fundamentally fulfilling its long distance purpose any more.

It has basically stood still (with not much realistic prospect of significant improvements in its current form due to the network it operates through) where the alternative network of connections around it has got faster and more frequent.

bunnahabhain said:

There is a fairly large turnover of passengers at Manchester, it isn't unusual to have less than two dozen travelling from East of Stockport to West of Manchester. It is busier of course during the peak time or if you travel on one of the busier off peak services (0957/1057 ex Norwich, 0951/1051 ex Liverpool).

Click to expand...

If those numbers are typical, the question becomes at what tipping point should the requirements of so relatively few through passengers (most of whome would still travel on a non-direct service) trump the overall benefit of splitting the service a much larger number of non-through passengers?

notlob.divad said:

Alternatively you could install 4 lifts between the platforms (1, 2&3, 4&5, 6&7) and the mid platform bridge and replace the reversal of the Transpennine services with a half hourly or better shuttle service to the Airport just like is done for Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, running from a dedicated Platform 12. It would massively increase reliability for everybody across the North of England, could be done with existing excess EMUs and would be benefitial to anyone coming to Manchester airport from across the whole country not just the handful that arrive via the route through Stalybridge.

Click to expand...

I'd support this as I've said before (I would go for a Merseyrail style 15 minute frequency all stations service calling at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green) but I wouldn't use 12 as it has no access from the bridge, I'd use 11 instead and move other services that use that to 12.

One thing I've noticed is that TPEs via the Chord are VERY busy including passengers boarding at Vic for Picc. This could be resolved by either including Metrolink travel in all Manchester Stns and via Manchester tickets and making this clear (perhaps use a symbol like the + to denote it), or by removing the TPE Chord services and replacing with a Northern EMU service using EMUs with a standee layout on a shuttle.

Actually, scratch using 11, it could be Airport-Manchester Vic calling at all the Styal Line stations then Picc, Oxford Road, Deansgate and Vic. Extend all stations to Rochdale once that's wired.

LowLevel said:

The only question raised by that in my mind is why would 4 trains per day have firm rights and the rest be contingent?

Click to expand...

Can I suggest that the way the form is filled may not be accurate enough for you to draw the conclusion you point to! I suspect there may need to be a slight revision to conform with the general principle since your observation is both accurate and ridiculous!

gazzaa2 said:

But will it run to Warrington/Widnes/South Parkway?

Click to expand...

The documents show that the EMT/EMR asked for no change, which was what they were directed to do by the DfT. The documents show ARN were trying to make a point and NR thought they needed to also make a point to show they were being fair whilst, in practice, changed nothing at all in peak times on the LIV-MAN part of the route.