Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

frodshamfella said:
I always thought the CLC route between Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester and beyond was the more popular route than via St Helens Junc anyway ? Before fast Leeds services all went on the CLC I believe.

I don't think the route is more popular, it's just the way BR, for whatever reason, decided to send the faster trains prior to recent changes. Possibly because Warrington is bigger and more important than a station that isn't quite in St Helens?

RailUK Forums

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

Ianno87 said:
The Norwich services takes the (now) slower route to Manchester via CLC and as such are an increasingly poor relation, don't attract long distance passengers in the same way, and not the fast service that Liverpool deserves, nor one that will meaningfully attract passengers.

I'd enjoy watching you try and say that to a crowd of early morning Warrington line commuters who are physically unable to board what remains of their services.

You have concocted a strange fantasy here, nothing more. Prior to the other tpe switching to the chat moss, it ran down what you call the "slow" line.

The tpe on the "fast" line is supposed to take 38 minutes, but any glance at RTT will show it is usually more. That has always been the case. Trains on the "slow" line take around 10 minutes longer. They also call at Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington. Two vital cogs in the region's economy.

At that time, on that line, there was a Manchester stopper - always packed and problematic due to that - the east mids, always busy and specifically protected from short forms as a result - and a TPE which was always 6 carriages long and which needed those carriages.

There has been no mad rush to the extra TPE on the "fast" line (Yes the TPEs are also overcrowded. That's big city demand Vs derisory provision for you), only a decimation of service along a line deemed in a TfN report to be the line most deserving of electrification (rather than abandonment).

It's the only direct service connecting the country's 4th biggest metro area (and its airport) to Sheffield and the East Midlands, and really that alone ought to trump nonsense supposed anecdotes and dreamt up visions of a pretend version of somewhere preferred to be believed in than the reality.

notlob.divad · 10 Dec 2019

Confused52 said:
Section 4.4.4 (Impact of Framework Agreements) of Network Rail Infrastructure's Network Statement 2019, on Page 52 says [see - https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Network-Statement-2019.pdf]

"The New Working Timetable, as described in Section 4.3, must be consistent with the exercised firm rights of RUs, provided that they have been exercised at or before the relevant Priority Date. We must also attempt to accommodate all access proposals supported by contingent rights but firm rights always take priority."

So in essence contingent rights are contingent on Network Rail thinking they can fit them in! For more details see the link, as a cure for insomnia perhaps.

Thank you, if I get time I might have a scan of that.

So if I am understanding correctly the timetable planners will place every other service currently using the Castlefield corridor in the timetable first, then if there is a gap to accomodate the EMR service. Whilst you may be right in terms of the service actually continuing to terminate at Lime Street on 'contingent' grounds, it still presumably leaves it very very vulnerable to be the first service culled if anything goes wrong.

The major complaint still stands though: whenever their is a problem to which the answer is culling services, why is it always long and medium distance services to Liverpool that are in the firing line. We saw it with the loss of any service to Scotland, (thankfully starting to be returned) we saw it again in the aftermath of Operation Princess, when Liverpool lost connectivity to Bristol, and the South Coast, we saw it again with the shakeup of services that removed Barrow, Windermere and Lancaster as direct destinations, and now we are seeing the beginings of it again with the service to Sheffield and the East Midlands.

JonathanH · 10 Dec 2019

frodshamfella said:
I always thought the CLC route between Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester and beyond was the more popular route than via St Helens Junc anyway ? Before fast Leeds services all went on the CLC I believe.

The CLC was, from the time of the downgrade of Manchester Victoria in 1989, the route used by the fastest service from Liverpool to Manchester - the Liverpool to Scarborough service ran in the opposite half hour to the Liverpool to Norwich. This gave 2tph at Warrington Central and 1tph at each of Widnes and Birchwood.

However, in recent years, there was work done at Huyton which allows fast trains to overtake stoppers and, of course, electrification. This means that they can run two fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester on the Chat Moss route.

The dilema they have is how to serve Warrington Central with a fast service.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
The dilema they have is how to serve Warrington Central with a fast service.

My take, as I've said before, is that you run 4tph on the route, two of them stop all stations to Warrington then run fast (possibly one stop e.g. Birchwood) to Manchester, and two run fast to Warrington (possibly calling at Widnes and/or Warrington West) then all stations to Manchester. Use 3 or 4-car 195s for the acceleration. Warrington still gets a fast service to each end and the local stations get a far better service.

(What is meant by "Manchester" is for further discussion, perhaps one of each to Ringway and one of each to Oxford Road bay, or connect to the Hope Valley stopper if it moves to via Hazel Grove)

Grumpy Git · 10 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
The dilema they have is how to serve Warrington Central with a fast service.

As I have said previously, some OLE would be a start.

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
My point being that the cross-Manchester flows aren't significant enough to require all of the messy cross-city services that we have.

Whilst there will be demand from a place on one side of Manchester to various places on the other side, IMHO its too complicated to try to provide all of these direct links.

That's why I'd rather that we focussed on simple links, better connections, longer trains (instead of several hourly services often run by two coach DMUs).

So, taking the CLC as an example, the need for a service all the way to Norwich isn't important enough to warrant the pain caused by having these narrow doored trains going through Castlefield, nor is the need to run all the way to Liverpool worth putting the Nottingham./ Sheffield passengers at the mercy of the bottleneck west of Piccadilly.

TBH I'd be happy with longer trains from Sheffield to Manchester at the cost of everything terminating in the "shed" at Piccadilly. There'd be a loss of through services to the Airport/ Liverpool but I don't think that there are sufficient passengers to make such links essential - Sheffield lost its direct links to Blackpool/ Cumbria etc some time ago and (whilst it'd be useful to some people to have such direct services) I don't think we can satisfy the small number of long distance passengers when trying to cater to the large number of everyday passengers (typically doing journeys of under ninety minutes)

It sounds impressive, but it's not a huge claim to fame when Manchester/ Sheffield/ Newcastle/ Sunderland have light rail networks - all it really means is that Liverpool has a bigger local train network than Leeds.

Equating Liverpool to Blackpool and Cumbria? Really??

Of course Liverpool has a bigger local train network than Leeds. It's metropolitan train usage is still in excess of Greater Manchester's even when metrolinks passengers are included, and still double the usage per inhabitant.

When you're clearly not someone with anything to lose from terminating all Liverpool's services at Manchester (just so your own city can run a trophy service to the airport, rather than send that TPE to Liverpool where the real demand lies), who cares what you're "happy" with?

The damage being done to one of our major metropolitan economies is nothing short of a national scandal. The only thing that prevents it from being seen as that is that it's Liverpool.

Chester1 · 10 Dec 2019

Killingworth said:
Squeezing that 4th train for the Hope Valley through both Manchester and Sheffield will be a big challenge. Don't overlook the numbers using those current trains at Oxford Road who'd be unhappy to see it diverted.

It needs to be done for capacity reasons even if causes problems for other services. 3tph express and 1 stopper is the minimum that the Hope Valley needs.

notlob.divad said:
If it gets cut, it isn't goign to be replaced. As I highlighted above the problem is network rail granting 'firm' rights for any services between Castlefield Junction and East Piccadilly Junction. Any service off the CLC, must pass through Castlefield Junction to get to a terminal station, (unless you are going to make its eastern terminus Manchester United Football Ground Halt). So there will be no replacement service because if Network Rail won't grant the rights to EMR they won't grant it to any other operator either. (If they did EMR as a private entity, would surely have a pretty solid legal case against Network Rail).

An express Lime Street - Oxford Road terminator might be easier to path and not build up delays from elsewhere?

frodshamfella said:
I always thought the CLC route between Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester and beyond was the more popular route than via St Helens Junc anyway ? Before fast Leeds services all went on the CLC I believe.

Yes, Chat Moss line was electrified and upgraded because it connects with the WCML and services can avoid Piccadilly, not because it was better used. The majority of end to end passengers have switched to the faster services.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Grumpy Git said:
As I have said previously, some OLE would be a start.

It would massively help, but you could deliver the same level of service by using Class 195s in the meantime.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Camden said:
Equating Liverpool to Blackpool and Cumbria? Really??

Of course Liverpool has a bigger local train network than Leeds. It's metropolitan train usage is still in excess of Greater Manchester's even when metrolinks passengers are included, and still double the usage per inhabitant.

When you're clearly not someone with anything to lose from terminating all Liverpool's services at Manchester (just so your own city can run a trophy service to the airport, rather than send that TPE to Liverpool where the real demand lies), who cares what you're "happy" with?

The damage being done to one of our major metropolitan economies is nothing short of a national scandal. The only thing that prevents it from being seen as that is that it's Liverpool.

The problem for Liverpool is that it's out on a limb (well, a sticky out bit of land) - the service pattern is only based on the need to travel to or from it, nobody needs to travel via it unless coming from or going to its immediate hinterland (basically Merseyrail Electrics).

Manchester gets a better service not because it is Manchester, but because it is a useful connectional node in the way Liverpool really isn't.

(Liverpool however has a local service Manchester would give its eye teeth for, and a whacking subsidy to match!)

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

However, lots of people do want and need to travel to and from Liverpool. Myself included, in all directions and frequently.

Having a major coastal city should be seen by the UK as an asset, as it would be in other countries. Instead, its existence seems to vary between being ignored or resented.

Deleting a major city link (as is effectively happening) should be out of bounds thinking at the DfT and Network rail. Someone should get fired for this.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

So given that this issue is basically Castlefield and overcrowded, delayed, end-doored trains, how could it be solved? I have wondered about the idea of running it via Denton and Victoria instead? Using 6 car Class 185s would also help.

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
So given that this issue is basically Castlefield and overcrowded, delayed, end-doored trains, how could it be solved? I have wondered about the idea of running it via Denton and Victoria instead? Using 6 car Class 185s would also help.

Instead of running that daft TPE victoria via castefield, objected to by Liverpool in the consultation, they should do the only sensible thing and run it to Liverpool, giving Liverpool three TPEs. The ordsall chord was an expensive mistake of political design.It needs taking out of service until it can be finished properly (out of TfGM's budget).

It should not be allowed to be used to strangle the services of its neighbour.

As and when the DfT split the East Midlands and give that to TPE, there would be no issue then continuing to run to Liverpool.

Grumpy Git · 10 Dec 2019

Next idea could be to extend Merseyrail Hunts X terminus to Piccadilly, then discontinue westbound services beyond Old Trafford Halt.

notlob.divad · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
So given that this issue is basically Castlefield and overcrowded, delayed, end-doored trains, how could it be solved?

Camden said:
Instead of running that daft TPE victoria via castefield, objected to by Liverpool in the consultation, they should do the only sensible thing and run it to Liverpool, giving Liverpool three TPEs. The ordsall chord was an expensive mistake of political design.It needs taking out of service until it can be finished properly (out of TfGM's budget).

It should not be allowed to be used to strangle the services of its neighbour.

As and when the DfT split the East Midlands and give that to TPE, there would be no issue then continuing to run to Liverpool.

Absolutely.

The Middlesborough <> Manchester Airport service, passes through Victoria in both directions within minutes of the Leeds <> Chester via Bradford service. Cut the Leeds < > Chester back to terminate in the East facing Bays at Victoria, and run the Middlesborough service through to Chester instead calling at all the same stations. (Newton, Earlestown and Warrington Bank Quay). There is an easy removal of one train per hour, from the Castlefield Corridor that simultaneously, massively improves connectivity for a huge swath of people across the North of England and north Wales. It may take a couple of the 185s that will be going spare soon for an extra diagram, but will equally give Northern an extra DMU diagram to play with.

ForTheLoveOf · 10 Dec 2019

Chester1 said:
Lime Street - Victoria - Stockport - Sheffield - Nottingham would be a potential alternative route. It would extend Manchester - Sheffield to an hour but that would be offset by running via Chat Moss. A Stockport - Victoria service would be a useful link too. Finding paths would be complicated though!

I think this would make a lot of sense from a connectivity point of view. If you really wanted to run on the CLC (to continue to serve Warrington directly) then I suppose you could build a second "Ordsall Chord South" of sorts, like this:

Biggest three obvious challenges would be demolishing the self storage unit adjacent to Water Street Junction, fitting in under the arches of the Metrolink higher level viaduct on the southern end, and fitting in the required pointwork at quite a constrained site at Water Street Junction. But I wouldn't imagine it could cost much more than the Ordsall Chord did...

Of course it would make Water Street Junction even busier than it already is (unless you made that grade separated, which would probably make the cost of the Ordsall Chord look like small change) and I rather suspect that the journey time via Victoria and Denton would be so much longer, even if you could take out the current pathing time through Castlefield, that you'd miss your path through Stockport and the Hope Valley - thus requiring a rescheduling of all that, or a greatly extended journey time.

It's clearly not a problem with an easy answer but making a 30+ year old service that is heavily used stop, is clearly not the answer! As there is no prospect of the Picc-Vic tunnel ever happening on the foreseeable future, I think the least that GMPTE/TfN could do would be to accept all cross-Manchester National Rail tickets on the Metrolink.

Ianno87 · 10 Dec 2019

Camden said:
I'd enjoy watching you try and say that to a crowd of early morning Warrington line commuters who are physically unable to board what remains of their services.

If there is a replacement service in the same to Manchester Oxford Road/Piccadilly/Airport instead....what's the issue? That will satisfy virtually all the commuters.

You have concocted a strange fantasy here, nothing more. Prior to the other tpe switching to the chat moss, it ran down what you call the "slow" line.

And it is now much faster, to the benefit of the majority. And that's the way the demand has gone to follow it.

The tpe on the "fast" line is supposed to take 38 minutes, but any glance at RTT will show it is usually more. That has always been the case. Trains on the "slow" line take around 10 minutes longer. They also call at Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington. Two vital cogs in the region's economy.

Two vital cogs, which would still be endowed with replacement regional connections to Liverpool and Manchester, connecting employment, business and housing together, which is the core purpose of the railway.

At that time, on that line, there was a Manchester stopper - always packed and problematic due to that - the east mids, always busy and specifically protected from short forms as a result - and a TPE which was always 6 carriages long and which needed those carriages.

There has been no mad rush to the extra TPE on the "fast" line (Yes the TPEs are also overcrowded. That's big city demand Vs derisory provision for you), only a decimation of service along a line deemed in a TfN report to be the line most deserving of electrification (rather than abandonment).

No made rush to the Chat Moss TPE, but yet it's overcrowded? Which one is it?

It's the only direct service connecting the country's 4th biggest metro area (and its airport) to Sheffield and the East Midlands, and really that alone ought to trump nonsense supposed anecdotes and dreamt up visions of a pretend version of somewhere preferred to be believed in than the reality.

They'll still be connected. It just involves changing trains.

I agree that direct, fast regional connections are to be aspired, but not where there this is detrimental to the core purpose of the railway. The Liverpool-Norwich is no longer serving this purpose at all well, which is the point you keep repeatedly missing. I'm arguing that two, faster connectional opportunities per hour will be much more appealing to passengers (and actually better for the perception of strategic connectivity to Sheffield and other regions from Liverpool) than the current setup of one single, relatively slow and crowded train each hour.

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

You clearly don't have a clue about the reality of any of this. Your lack of genuine engagement on the points suggests you don't really care, as long the end result is a marginalised Liverpool.

Sadly, I think that is the bigger problem here. There is no fix for that, simply the region needs better and stronger defences against its impact where it occurs.

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

notlob.divad said:
Absolutely.

The Middlesborough <> Manchester Airport service, passes through Victoria in both directions within minutes of the Leeds <> Chester via Bradford service. Cut the Leeds < > Chester back to terminate in the East facing Bays at Victoria, and run the Middlesborough service through to Chester instead calling at all the same stations. (Newton, Earlestown and Warrington Bank Quay). There is an easy removal of one train per hour, from the Castlefield Corridor that simultaneously, massively improves connectivity for a huge swath of people across the North of England and north Wales. It may take a couple of the 185s that will be going spare soon for an extra diagram, but will equally give Northern an extra DMU diagram to play with.

Make sure your metro mayor hears directly the issues and alternatives. Just like the splitting of the route was a fait accomplis, so will this be unless it's made clear to the dft that it won't be worth the trouble it causes them.

frodshamfella · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I don't think the route is more popular, it's just the way BR, for whatever reason, decided to send the faster trains prior to recent changes. Possibly because Warrington is bigger and more important than a station that isn't quite in St Helens?

Yes its a bit out of town St Helens Junc

gazzaa2 · 10 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
The dilema they have is how to serve Warrington Central with a fast service.

Don't forget South Parkway and Widnes and also the pressure on the line from the new Warrington West.

Its insane this service is in the firing line to accommodate more trains from elsewhere to Manchester Airport.

frodshamfella · 10 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
The CLC was, from the time of the downgrade of Manchester Victoria in 1989, the route used by the fastest service from Liverpool to Manchester - the Liverpool to Scarborough service ran in the opposite half hour to the Liverpool to Norwich. This gave 2tph at Warrington Central and 1tph at each of Widnes and Birchwood.

However, in recent years, there was work done at Huyton which allows fast trains to overtake stoppers and, of course, electrification. This means that they can run two fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester on the Chat Moss route.

The dilema they have is how to serve Warrington Central with a fast service.

Not to mention passengers for Liverpool Airport from beyond the Northwest trying to get to South Parkway.

Grumpy Git · 10 Dec 2019

frodshamfella said:
Not to mention passengers for Liverpool Airport from beyond the Northwest trying to get to South Parkway.

Manchester Airport has always and will continue do everything in its power to diminish the competitiveness of Liverpool Airport, (the stopping of the wonderful 3x KLM shuttles to Amsterdam being one very good example). I sometimes wonder if BA had anything to do with this as well?

It would do well to keep its own house in order given the dire state of T1 and the bloody awful security areas.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Camden said:
You clearly don't have a clue about the reality of any of this. Your lack of genuine engagement on the points suggests you don't really care, as long the end result is a marginalised Liverpool.

Sadly, I think that is the bigger problem here. There is no fix for that, simply the region needs better and stronger defences against its impact where it occurs.

Liverpool will always be marginalised in a transport sense because of its location. It is not a useful connectional node to go anywhere other than itself. Therefore, all services are justified only by the need to travel to/from it, which will necessarily marginalise it over Manchester which is a vital connectional node - I'd venture that more people travel via it than to/from it or at least a similar number. The number travelling via Liverpool to somewhere not in the Liverpool City Region will either be zero or very near it.

These posts just smack of jealous Scousers[1], and that should not get in the way of proper transport provision. In any case, Liverpool has Merseyrail - most of Manchester would fight you for that and its hefty annual subsidy, at one point the second highest per passenger mile below only Island Line.

[1] Remember, I am one by birth.

Grumpy Git · 10 Dec 2019

I'm not a native, but I have got my 20 year service badge.

As someone who lived almost 15 miles from the nearest station (and only then a branch line terminus) to having one literally on my doorstep, I'd do anything to prevent any services serving the city being diminished.

Bletchleyite said:
The number travelling via Liverpool to somewhere not in the Liverpool City Region will either be zero or very near it.

I'm sure residents of the Isle of Man and cruise passengers would disagree?

Killingworth · 10 Dec 2019

It's all very well for those advocating various solutions for inter-city connections, but please spare a thought for those of us in the middle between Sheffield and Manchester.

Our stopping trains are being unfairly blamed for many of the issues. As often as not the delays to them come from other TOCs - and they're being knocked on from Network Rail or another TOC many miles away. It might be TPEs late running Middlesbrough service, trapping our eastbound service in the platform at Piccadilly. Or their Cleethorpes westbound delayed at Doncaster or Meadowhall causing the stopper to be held at Sheffield. A late running EMR eastbound service may cause the stopper to be held beyond New Mills awaiting clearance at Chinley. Freight services also cause delays.

I've just extracted some data from the On Time Trains website. All the stations on the former Dore & Chinley Railway (opened 125 years ago and including Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford, Hope and Edale) currently feature in the worst 25 from all 2,618 in the country for punctuality of their trains.

Too many trains on too few tracks with too many things that can go wrong!

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Liverpool will always be marginalised in a transport sense because of its location. It is not a useful connectional node to go anywhere other than itself. Therefore, all services are justified only by the need to travel to/from it, which will necessarily marginalise it over Manchester which is a vital connectional node - I'd venture that more people travel via it than to/from it or at least a similar number. The number travelling via Liverpool to somewhere not in the Liverpool City Region will either be zero or very near it.

These posts just smack of jealous Scousers[1], and that should not get in the way of proper transport provision. In any case, Liverpool has Merseyrail - most of Manchester would fight you for that and its hefty annual subsidy, at one point the second highest per passenger mile below only Island Line.

[1] Remember, I am one by birth.

I would disagree that Manchester is a major connection node much more than Liverpool. Most people changing trains at Manchester's city centre stations will have come from surrounding towns and suburbs, just like in Liverpool.

Manchester has a number of East West trains going through it - that's the only difference, and that merely makes Manchester a calling point not a node.

I reject the "jealous Scouser" label, both because I am not either and because you being a "Scouser" doesn't automatically exempt you from being part of a negative narrative.

"End of the line" applies to most of our major destinations, and the destination of Liverpool ought to be just as worthy of serving and connecting as any other major city. It doesn't have to be an onward "node" to justify these levels of connectivity. It is merited by scale of population and economy (in turn what should be normal levels of usage).

If connecting one of our biggest cities to other big cities has come down to a zero sum game, then those who have allowed that situation to arise - or worse are supporting it - need to be identified and dealt with, and the situation put right. Nothing else.

Camden · 10 Dec 2019

frodshamfella said:
Not to mention passengers for Liverpool Airport from beyond the Northwest trying to get to South Parkway.

I would argue that if this situation is allowed to occur that Liverpool quite possibly has grounds to challenge in court. Given the mountains of evidence of dodgy arguments and public bodies successfully lobbying for Manchester Airport to be prioritised (including HS2) the notion that state aid hasn't been given is laughable.

Throw in an argument that the state is hindering a rival, and the discussion becomes less abstract and more serious.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Camden said:
If connecting one of our biggest cities to other big cities has come down to a zero sum game, then those who have allowed that situation to arise - or worse are supporting it - need to be identified and dealt with, and the situation put right. Nothing else.

You can't however have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere, and the Liverpool-Norwich service has long - possibly forever - been a seriously poor performer.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Grumpy Git said:
I'm sure residents of the Isle of Man and cruise passengers would disagree?

Neither of those are that large in volume.

Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member