Could the Norwich - Liverpool service be sped up?

[dk1]

Would the demand be for 5 car units? I know Nottingham-Sheffield would warrant them on the route. Unfortunately there is no way to see the number of tickets from one station to another.

I like the tentative plans to operate as 5-cars (with the addition of centre cars in some units) and that the 3-cars continue wherever possible East. Along with a refurb/refresh of the 158 fleet I think that would be a perfect outcome.

 

[Magdalia]

I couldn’t disagree more. Norwich merits an hourly service to Peterborough & is well used as a connection to the North.

If that was correct the trains would be of more than 2 carriages. Yes, there are people making connections between Norwich and the north at Peterborough but in the grand scheme of things the numbers aren't very big.

the running of 4-cars right through has been most welcome too.

According to Real Time Trains the only 4 car out of Norwich is the 0549. There will be a queue in the street for that!

If everything was 4 cars and crowded then the case would be different, but taking up 4 paths per hour between Ely and Ely North Junction for 2 car trains is unjustifiable.

 

[Trainbike46]

And considering how often a late presentation from Liverpool means the Norwich is following a stopper to Skegness, that doesn’t sound promising.



I think the only chance you would get is 755s to Nottingham as wouldn’t be enough to take over the entire route unless a follow on order is made. There were rumours of an hourly Ely service from Ipswich to assist with Soham but getting beyond to Peterborough is proving extremely difficult.

This may just be because of how good I think 755s are, but I would support ordering more and switching the entire route over to 755s. Keep maintenance in Norwich, and operate them as part of a common fleet with the GA regionals

Depending on loadings, it may be worth getting some 5 or 6 car ones for the busiest circuits

 

[High Dyke]

And considering how often a late presentation from Liverpool means the Norwich is following a stopper to Skegness, that doesn’t sound promising.

That usually depends on how benevolent the signallers at EMCC (Derby) are feeling. Many times the Skegness gets delayed for the Norwich, but the response will be correct regulation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure whether it's quicker via Grantham or via Stamford: I would guess that there's not much in it.

Much quicker via Grantham - about 20 mins.

 

[raetiamann]

I can only speak about the Manchester - Nottingham section, which if the service is to be split/terminated at Nottingham would benefit from either strengthening the 2x158 sets by an extra coach or replacing the 158s with the 222 5coach sets, one released from MML duties.

 

[Trainbike46]

I can only speak about the Manchester - Nottingham section, which if the service is to be split/terminated at Nottingham would benefit from either strengthening the 2x158 sets by an extra coach or replacing the 158s with the 222 5coach sets, one released from MML duties.

The challenge with the 222s is that they can't use sprinter differentials (though I'm not sure there are any west of Nottingham)

 

[dk1]

If that was correct the trains would be of more than 2 carriages. Yes, there are people making connections between Norwich and the north at Peterborough but in the grand scheme of things the numbers aren't very big.


According to Real Time Trains the only 4 car out of Norwich is the 0549. There will be a queue in the street for that!

If everything was 4 cars and crowded then the case would be different, but taking up 4 paths per hour between Ely and Ely North Junction for 2 car trains is unjustifiable.

Last weekend some very well loaded 4-cars were in use in the middle of the day. You will see a good 70% of passengers boarding at Norwich still there at Peterborough & why it’s been so successful for so many years. No need to change anything apart from increasing capacity.

 

[Bartsimho]

Last weekend some very well loaded 4-cars were in use in the middle of the day. You will see a good 70% of passengers boarding at Norwich still there at Peterborough & why it’s been so successful for so many years. No need to change anything apart from increasing capacity.

Some line improvements to allow no potential differential between High-Speed Trainsets and the Sprinters with the introduction of 5-car class 222's once the 810's arrive.

 

[dk1]

Some line improvements to allow no potential differential between High-Speed Trainsets and the Sprinters with the introduction of 5-car class 222's once the 810's arrive.

I’ve looked at this many times over the years. The sections where significant improved running times are possible are very limited & I can only see it leading to longer dwell times as the paths on other sections such as Liverpool-Manchester, around Nottingham, Grantham & east of Peterborough would require a recast of other operators services. Don’t think anything that isn’t permitted to travel at SP speeds is ever going to get above 45mph between Ely North Jcn & Lakenheath.

 

[Trainbike46]

Some line improvements to allow no potential differential between High-Speed Trainsets and the Sprinters with the introduction of 5-car class 222's once the 810's arrive.

It seems highly unlikely the 222s will remain with EMR beyond the introduction of 810s

And even if they did remain, they wouldn't be suitable for this route due to sprinter differentials

Upgrading the sprinter differentials unlikely to be cheap, as it is linked to the (relatively unstable) fen soil in large parts of East Anglia. It would be much better to just continue running with 158s (plus the occasional 170) or to get new trains that can use sprinter differentials (such as the 755s, as unlikely as ordering new trains may be)

 

[dk1]

Another way of speeding up as stated earlier is avoiding Sheffield & Ely but the trouble is these are significant revenue generators so you’ll lose more than you gain. The service was speeded up somewhat in East Anglia around 20 years ago as the Norwich-Cambridge gradually absorbed calls at Brandon, Attleborough & Wymondham allowing all but a few peak services to call only at Thetford.

 

[dosxuk]

If that was correct the trains would be of more than 2 carriages. Yes, there are people making connections between Norwich and the north at Peterborough but in the grand scheme of things the numbers aren't very big.


According to Real Time Trains the only 4 car out of Norwich is the 0549. There will be a queue in the street for that!

If everything was 4 cars and crowded then the case would be different, but taking up 4 paths per hour between Ely and Ely North Junction for 2 car trains is unjustifiable.

It is correct, the fact it's only two carriages is more down to EMT/EMR not having sufficient numbers of suitable stock to run more carriages.

In the Central Trains days, 3 and 4 coach services were the norm, but as well recorded, they messed up the passenger figures and then when the network was split, EMT got a significant reduction in capacity (this then led to the 158's getting their high-density refit to provide as many seats as possible). Even in those days, CT were publically stating that they were increasing prices to reduce demand, and that demand is still suppressed today.

The route, especially in the East, is often unpleasant to use due to overcrowding. It's very much a route that needs upgrading both physically and importance - not scrapping because it's only 2 cars.

 

[dk1]

It is correct, the fact it's only two carriages is more down to EMT/EMR not having sufficient numbers of suitable stock to run more carriages.

In the Central Trains days, 3 and 4 coach services were the norm, but as well recorded, they messed up the passenger figures and then when the network was split, EMT got a significant reduction in capacity (this then led to the 158's getting their high-density refit to provide as many seats as possible). Even in those days, CT were publically stating that they were increasing prices to reduce demand, and that demand is still suppressed today.

The route, especially in the East, is often unpleasant to use due to overcrowding. It's very much a route that needs upgrading both physically and importance - not scrapping because it's only 2 cars.

Serious errors with stock allocation after the 2007 split left EMT in a very poor position & something they’ve been hindered with ever since.

 

[MattRat]

Could it possible to run a fast service, that say avoids places like Manchester, as well as still having the slower stopping pattern for those using it for smaller journeys? That would seem the best solution.

 

[Brubulus]

What would be interesting would be if the service could be used to provide 2tph between Cambridge and Peterborough, as the current 1tph service is regularly overcrowded, even with relatively inconvenient connections at Peterborough.

 

[JonathanH]

What would be interesting would be if the service could be used to provide 2tph between Cambridge and Peterborough, as the current 1tph service is regularly overcrowded, even with relatively inconvenient connections at Peterborough.

How would you then maintain 2tph between Ely and Norwich?

 

[Brubulus]

How would you then maintain 2tph between Ely and Norwich?

Splitting the train at Ely, though capacity between Cambridge and Ely could become a problem.

 

[dk1]

What would be interesting would be if the service could be used to provide 2tph between Cambridge and Peterborough, as the current 1tph service is regularly overcrowded, even with relatively inconvenient connections at Peterborough.

Where you saying instead of going to Norwich or portion attaching/detaching at Ely.

Where you saying instead of going to Norwich or portion attaching/detaching at Ely.

You’ve just answered that. I think capacity & the reliability impact at Ely would rule it out. Also EMR have no drivers/guards based at Cambridge or that sign the route. It wouldn’t be very cost effective.

 

[Brubulus]

Where you saying instead of going to Norwich or portion attaching/detaching at Ely.

I would presume detaching at Ely, unless all Ely - Norwich demand can be met with 1tph, which I don't think it can

 

[dk1]

I would presume detaching at Ely, unless all Ely - Norwich demand can be met with 1tph, which I don't think it can

Certainly not & you’d deprive the good folks of Norwich & Norfolk with a direct service to Peterborough & the rest of the world. You’d also have no work for the EMR traincrew depot at Norwich which also would be very unpopular indeed.

Cross Country for some reason struggle to operate all the services they should out of Cambridge now.

 

[Magdalia]

Rolling stock and traincrew are not the most important constraint, which is train paths especially at Ely and Peterborough. Don't forget that we are not just talking passenger trains here, there is a lot of freight than needs train paths too.

When train paths are the constraint what is required is fewer longer trains not more short trains. It would be nice if every route had 2tph, including Ely-Kings Lynn. Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge would all like through trains to Peterborough, but there isn't room for them all.

More through services could be retained by portion working, but that seems to be out of favour. Another way is alternating destinations like the North East/South west timetable did 40-50 years ago, but that seems to be out of favour too. Otherwise, fewer longer trains means sacrificing some through journeys, but that can be compensated by an overall increase in capacity. Which nodes are linked by direct trains is a choice, and the choices made 30 years ago are not necessarily still appropriate now.

 

[dk1]

Rolling stock and traincrew are not the most important constraint, which is train paths especially at Ely and Peterborough. Don't forget that we are not just talking passenger trains here, there is a lot of freight than needs train paths too.

When train paths are the constraint what is required is fewer longer trains not more short trains. It would be nice if every route had 2tph, including Ely-Kings Lynn. Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge would all like through trains to Peterborough, but there isn't room for them all.

More through services could be retained by portion working, but that seems to be out of favour. Another way is alternating destinations like the North East/South west timetable did 40-50 years ago, but that seems to be out of favour too. Otherwise, fewer longer trains means sacrificing some through journeys, but that can be compensated by an overall increase in capacity. Which nodes are linked by direct trains is a choice, and the choices made 30 years ago are not necessarily still appropriate now.

The removal of alternating destinations out of East Anglia was all down to traincrew route learning. Norwich crews never signed beyond Peterborough whereas Cambridge signed to Leicester. When Peterborough depot depot closed Regional Railways could not stretch to the vast expense of crew training so it was decided Norwich would concentrate on the North West signing to Nottingham whilst Cambridge would learn Leicester to Birmingham New St. Norwich crews did however end up signing via Stamford/Loughborough for diverging purposes & a few trains went that way to maintain route knowledge.

A few services swapped crews at Ely for a time under Central Trains to offer the odd Norwich-Birmingham train but all was lost in 2007 when the split that we see today came into force.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Last weekend some very well loaded 4-cars were in use in the middle of the day. You will see a good 70% of passengers boarding at Norwich still there at Peterborough & why it’s been so successful for so many years. No need to change anything apart from increasing capacity.

IF @dk1 says these trains are well loaded and 70% of pax who boarded at Norwich are still there at Peterboro, that's good enough for me. I certainly won't be arguing they should be constrained to two cars, unless some very sound evidence is provided to the contrary.

He only drives the things, after all.

 

[dk1]

IF @dk1 says these trains are well loaded and 70% of pax who boarded at Norwich are still there at Peterboro, that's good enough for me. I certainly won't be arguing they should be constrained to two cars, unless some very sound evidence is provided to the contrary.

He only drives the things, after all.

To be fair I drive the Stansted 755s as far as Cambridge but I have monitored & frequently used the 158s on that route since they were introduced over 30 years ago. In fact I was onboard the very first 156 from Yarmouth to Liverpool at 08:56 in May 1988. The crowding sometimes is not good & you know if boarding at Norwich there’s very little chance of getting a seat before Peterborough. Lots of luggage & inter-connecting for Yorkshire/NE/Scotland as well as intermediate traffic. Just needs to be shown a little more love.

Last years well documented issues with EMR & regular cancellations saw severe overcrowding on GAs services whilst carrying their passengers to Ely to connect with equally crowded XC/GA Peterborough trains.

 

[ivanhoe]

I've used Liverpool to Nottingham on numerous occasions and once or twice from Loughborough to Norwich when I had meetings at UEA.The first two trains from Nottingham to Norwich go via Melton and Oakham and I was surprised on the number of passengers who used it. There's quite a few people who use this route early in the morning who are traveling to Oakham,Grantham and Peterborough.
The route is one without logic when you just examine start and terminate but the number of communities en route in various sectors , are quite numerous. Speeding the route up is of little consequence for most passengers. Making the service reliable and punctual is more important with enough seating to meet demand.

 

[Bald Rick]

Could it possible to run a fast service, that say avoids places like Manchester, as well as still having the slower stopping pattern for those using it for smaller journeys? That would seem the best solution.

Why would you miss out the single biggest urban area on the whole route?

sometimes I despair.

 

[dosxuk]

Why would you miss out the single biggest urban area on the whole route?

sometimes I despair.

We could make it even quicker by bypassing Ely, Peterborough, Nottingham, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Stockport and Warrington - all those passengers making the end-to-end journey could relish in the time savings and space they had available. It might even become competitive with going via London if you missed out all the intermediate stops and build some new bypass routes in. Perfect excuse to get Matlock to Buxton reopened too.

 

[Northumbriana]

Liverpool - Warrington onto HS2 to Manchester Airport - reverse at Piccadilly onto Stockport line and then to Sheffield - then along the Worksop line but joining HS2 Eastern leg via a new connection and then into Nottingham via branch off HS2 - Peterborough - Norwich or Cambridge.

Then just supplement it with local services running from Liverpool - Warrington - Widnes - Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield / Sheffield - Chesterfield - Nottingham & Nottingham - Norwich or Cambridge.

 

[Bald Rick]

Liverpool - Warrington onto HS2 to Manchester Airport - reverse at Piccadilly onto Stockport line

There isn’t going to be a link from HS2 @ Piccadilly to the conventional network.