Crewe to Derby line skeleton services.

[AlexS]

One other thing that was an unfortunate side effect of the splitting of Central Trains was of course the loss of the ability to move units around to meet need - if you had a busy event somewhere on the network you could use some of the Birmingham suburban class 150s to provide relief to the normal fleet (largely referring to the period after which the 150s became more restricted to Birmingham, as opposed to the annoying one where they'd drop on to long distance services or randomly appear in Skegness).

It's paralleled on other lines in the same situation - when Wales and Borders were created, the original Cosford Airshow specials were lost - at one point when it was Regional Railways/Central Trains, you got a 10 minutely shuttle service to Wolverhampton and possibly Shrewsbury using the station loops to turn back some trains as the busiest times. As soon as the Sunday service, where the airshow was held, was taken over by W&B/ATW, found it far more difficult to run any special services to cater for the demand as their rolling stock was maintained in Cardiff and not exactly local. It's only in recent years that London Midland has introduced a limited service on Airshow Sundays only at some of it's own risk.

 

[Gareth Marston]

One other thing that was an unfortunate side effect of the splitting of Central Trains was of course the loss of the ability to move units around to meet need - if you had a busy event somewhere on the network you could use some of the Birmingham suburban class 150s to provide relief to the normal fleet (largely referring to the period after which the 150s became more restricted to Birmingham, as opposed to the annoying one where they'd drop on to long distance services or randomly appear in Skegness).

It's paralleled on other lines in the same situation - when Wales and Borders were created, the original Cosford Airshow specials were lost - at one point when it was Regional Railways/Central Trains, you got a 10 minutely shuttle service to Wolverhampton and possibly Shrewsbury using the station loops to turn back some trains as the busiest times. As soon as the Sunday service, where the airshow was held, was taken over by W&B/ATW, found it far more difficult to run any special services to cater for the demand as their rolling stock was maintained in Cardiff and not exactly local. It's only in recent years that London Midland has introduced a limited service on Airshow Sundays only at some of it's own risk.

Whole series of turns for the worse when Central was split up - ask anyone on the Cambrian.

 

[WillPS]

It intensely annoyed me that the Crewe service was cut back to Derby with the excuse of lack-of-paths being given, only for them to find one a couple of years later and give it to Matlock! Matlock at the time had a relatively good service from Nottingham in the way of Transpeak, and it appears to me that the railway has just abstracted from that service (hence it now being to Derby, probably!).

It needs to be put right anyway; Nottingham needs connections to other West Midland destinations than just Birmingham.

 

[tom1649]

It intensely annoyed me that the Crewe service was cut back to Derby with the excuse of lack-of-paths being given, only for them to find one a couple of years later and give it to Matlock! Matlock at the time had a relatively good service from Nottingham in the way of Transpeak, and it appears to me that the railway has just abstracted from that service (hence it now being to Derby, probably!).

It needs to be put right anyway; Nottingham needs connections to other West Midland destinations than just Birmingham.

As a Matlock resident I feel I should comment on this.

The Transpeak is still well used, particularly among those who have free passes etc. It is still the only (inferior) substitute to the closed main line between Matlock and Buxton. There is no other service linking the two towns. In fact the hourly service was only introduced in 2005 when Derbyshire County Council paid for improvements. In my experience of travelling on the Transpeak to Nottingham there were never many passengers on the Derby - Nottingham section even before we had our improved train service.

Part of the lack of appeal to me is that normal buses are used where we once had coaches and these are unsuitable for a such a long journey (Yes they use Excels all the way from Derby to Manchester).

Regarding the train service, would it be possible to run an hourly Matlock - Derby service with 2 units without long layover times at Derby? It is not possible to run a clockface hourly service with just 1 unit as the round trip takes over an hour. I understood that the through service to Nottingham was implemented to prevent units sitting idle at Derby between Matlock runs. A loss of the clockface timetable would undo the large rise of passengers using the train service over the last few years. Passenger numbers on the line increased by 94% in just 3 years after the hourly service was introduced. Surely this success should be celebrated?

I agree that the Crewe service could be better with longer DMUs running and some later services. However, I would consider it unfair for Matlock to forfeit its hourly service just to provide through services from Crewe to Nottingham.

 

[Roverman]

Should be given to London Midland for starters.

But LM can't run their own services let alone anyone else's!!!

 

[WillPS]

Part of the lack of appeal to me is that normal buses are used where we once had coaches and these are unsuitable for a such a long journey (Yes they use Excels all the way from Derby to Manchester).

I think as of November 2008 (when the service to Matlock was extended to Nottingham) coaches were still timetabled - if not for all services then for all those that did the whole hog Nottingham - Manchester. That they were then removed could be argued to be a response to the change in patronage as a result of longer journeys going to the train.

Regarding the train service, would it be possible to run an hourly Matlock - Derby service with 2 units without long layover times at Derby? It is not possible to run a clockface hourly service with just 1 unit as the round trip takes over an hour. I understood that the through service to Nottingham was implemented to prevent units sitting idle at Derby between Matlock runs. A loss of the clockface timetable would undo the large rise of passengers using the train service over the last few years. Passenger numbers on the line increased by 94% in just 3 years after the hourly service was introduced. Surely this success should be celebrated?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Why is 2 units with a long time idle in Derby any better than 3 units with a long time idle in Nottingham?

I agree that the Crewe service could be better with longer DMUs running and some later services. However, I would consider it unfair for Matlock to forfeit its hourly service just to provide through services from Crewe to Nottingham.

I'm not suggesting that Matlock should drop (back) to 1 unit; I'm saying that the path to Nottingham is wasted on it.

 

[tom1649]

I think as of November 2008 (when the service to Matlock was extended to Nottingham) coaches were still timetabled - if not for all services then for all those that did the whole hog Nottingham - Manchester. That they were then removed could be argued to be a response to the change in patronage as a result of longer journeys going to the train.


I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Why is 2 units with a long time idle in Derby any better than 3 units with a long time idle in Nottingham?


I'm not suggesting that Matlock should drop (back) to 1 unit; I'm saying that the path to Nottingham is wasted on it.

Yes for some reason I didn't factor in the idle time in Nottingham. In that case yes it would be better to go down to 2 units and just run Derby - Matlock and have the through service on the Crewe trains instead.

Sorry I didn't think it through very well.

 

[Qwerty133]

Platform space at derby could be an issue as the Crewe service often uses platform 5 especially during disruption and the Matlock trains would have to wait on a through platform for 40 mins which is not really practical. Also Matlock diagrams often change units at Nottingham when shortformed in winter and always in Sumer as a 153 is replaced by either 2x153 a 158 or very occasionally a 156.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Would it need to wait in the platform at Derby - surely it could run ECS into Etches Park or similar and run out again 10 mins before it's due to depart Derby for Matlock? Surely with better diagramming you would also remove the need for unit swapping at Nottingham. As an observation I had a few days in Nottingham in August - the Matlock trains were always a single 156 (as they were in summer 2010 when I stayed nearby), occassionally with a 153 attached - I saw little evidence of unit swapping - I wonder how they managed it pre- running through to Nottingham?

 

[Qwerty133]

Something that has not been mentioned is that services are late

This is because of the units often not being capable of performing to their supposed top speed and EMT still sending them out faulty it can also be caused by overcrowding on route at uttoxeter where the train gets stuck while being try to squash on board it then sometimes looses it path for crossing the midland mainline which delays it further just before arriving into derby. It is also often delayed leaving derby due to other trains around the same time getting priority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it need to wait in the platform at Derby - surely it could run ECS into Etches Park or similar and run out again 10 mins before it's due to depart Derby for Matlock? Surely with better diagramming you would also remove the need for unit swapping at Nottingham. As an observation I had a few days in Nottingham in August - the Matlock trains were always a single 156 (as they were in summer 2010 when I stayed nearby), occassionally with a 153 attached - I saw little evidence of unit swapping - I wonder how they managed it pre- running through to Nottingham?

During the summer a single 153 runs the 08:50 ex derby as an extra coach is required on a Skegness service it is then swapped at Nottingham to provide a two car service for most of the diagram. One diagram is now 2x153 and when the Crewe train breaks down at derby (fairly often) the Matlock train splits at derby with the rear unit going to Crewe 10 late and is then replaced on the Matlock diagram when it arrives into notingham. Also yes it could run as an ecs to etches park but it couldn't really leave until after the London train at xx:18/20 as it often doesn't arrive until xx:13 so by when it reached etches park it would almost be time to come back.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't think occupying a through platform is such a big problem - there are five of them, after all, and plenty of movements (Notts - B'hm and vv) that reverse in the station that could share the platform. For a while, the Crewe unit routinely used a through platform rather than the bay, with an XC unit arriving on top of it - not sure if that's changed now though. All probably easier than a shunt to EP and back though!

 

[Lewisham2221]

I don't think occupying a through platform is such a big problem - there are five of them, after all, and plenty of movements (Notts - B'hm and vv) that reverse in the station that could share the platform. For a while, the Crewe unit routinely used a through platform rather than the bay, with an XC unit arriving on top of it - not sure if that's changed now though. All probably easier than a shunt to EP and back though!

Currently seems to vary between the situation you describe, usually platform 2, or the bay, presumably based upon other movements around the same time.

 

[Qwerty133]

I don't think occupying a through platform is such a big problem - there are five of them, after all, and plenty of movements (Notts - B'hm and vv) that reverse in the station that could share the platform. For a while, the Crewe unit routinely used a through platform rather than the bay, with an XC unit arriving on top of it - not sure if that's changed now though. All probably easier than a shunt to EP and back though!

crewe services often uses platform 5 especially during disruption. but they are there for around 20 minutes and matlock services would be there for around 40 mins

 

[Mutant Lemming]

There's nothing on at Uttoxeter either. The only thing I could suggest it is for is getting Tranmere Rovers (based in Birkenhead) fans back to Merseyside after their FA Cup tie at Derby County - of course Pride Park is only a few mins from Derby station, and I highly doubt a 153 / 156 / 158 would be able to cope with numbers.

Probably advisable as Tranmere expect to take around 2000 + fans. Sounds like the 11:07, 12:07 and 13:07 from Crewe won't be a great deal of fun tomorrow.

Everyone seems to favour extending the Crewe-Stoke-Derby service but as the lack of rolling stocks deems this not possible at present why not shorten it to a Stoke-Derby service and increase the frequency?

 

[OuterDistant]

There isn't a terminal platform at Stoke for services from the south - that would probably be the biggest hurdle.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Cutting back to Stoke is a good idea on the surface, however a few thoughts come to mind:
- It removes the direct link direct link to Crewe and all its connections to Salop, N Wales, Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancs and Scotland.
- Kidsgrove gets a 33% service reduction and Alsager 50%. Longport would be left with just three trains a day. Obviously Northern could cover Longport hourly however.
- LM are rather keen to run their Euston-Crewe service via Madeley and not Stoke, which suddenly sees a potential 66% reduction in service at Kidsgrove, and no trains at all at Alsager (or indeed between Stoke and Crewe!). These would have to be covered somehow - whose need is greater - LM's or EMT's?
- Platforming at Stoke - IIRC only p1 (the main southbound) is bi-di (though that could have changed when the track was remodelled a few years ago) - getting the Derby train out and back between the current 5tph (?) that use the platform I can imagine would leave a tiny margin for error - if the Derby service is late I can only imagine it would get later awaiting a suitable path.

 

[calc7]

Could anything fancy be done with the diagramming of the Shrewsbury-Crewe stopper to tease out an extra unit between that and the Crewe-Derby service (transfer of service operation between TOCs necessary)

 

[CallySleeper]

Cutting back to Stoke is a good idea on the surface, however a few thoughts come to mind:
- It removes the direct link direct link to Crewe and all its connections to Salop, N Wales, Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancs and Scotland.

In the past (not so much now) I would be passing through Crewe quite a bit from Nottingham to get to Holyhead or the north west. As such, removing the Derby - Crewe link would have quite a drastic impact.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Weren't LM going to divert one of the Liverpool-Birmingham services via Stoke ? This would provide a same platform change for passengers from Merseyside and parts of Cheshire to Derby and a service for stations on the Crewe-Stoke section.

Sufficient capacity at Stoke does seem to be the main problem.

Although if there are better services on the Trent Valley line serving Tamworth then it could become the main changing point for passengers from other points to Derby and the Stoke -Derby section would become a much more local service.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

What time are these meridians due to arrive and depart and does anybody know if they will be stopping at Alsager. Thanks

 

[bunnahabhain]

What do you achieve by splitting the service at Stoke? In the EM RUS the suggestion was to actually extend the Derby to Crewe service to Manchester Airport, providing a direct service from the East Midlands and Stoke, it seems eminently more sensible to do that than reduce the service currently offered, when there is little chance of a like for like replacement.

 

[sd0733]

222104 is working up to crewe, just between uttoxeter and blythe bridge now About 4 late.

 

[OuterDistant]

Result!

Now, why can't EMT do this when there's something on at Uttoxeter?

 

[pjnathanail]

Result!

Now, why can't EMT do this when there's something on at Uttoxeter?

Do you know if FC was declassified?

 

[ashworth]

Cutting back to Stoke is a good idea on the surface, however a few thoughts come to mind:
- It removes the direct link direct link to Crewe and all its connections to Salop, N Wales, Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancs and Scotland.

Cutting back to Stoke I am sure would further reduce the number of passengers using this once busy route.
Nottingham passengers are already being inconvenienced by the the change at Derby, without another one at Stoke. When travelling from Nottingham to Lancs, Cumbria and Scotland this used to be the main route that most people used with just one change at Crewe. It is now quicker to change at Manchester perhaps one of the reasons why the Norwich-Liverpool service has been so overcrowded betweeen Nottingham and Manchester.

Following the withdrawal of through Nottingham-Glasgow trains in the 1980's it used to be so easy to travel from Nottingham to Glasgow with one change at Crewe but now no route is easy or particularly easy or quick. Listed below are some of the many alternatives from Nottingham. Change at Derby and Crewe
Change at Manchester and often additionally at Preston
Change at Leeds and Carlisle (if only som faster trains would use that route!)
Change at Sheffield (then long way round via East Coast and Edinburgh).
Change at Grantham and Edinburgh

I must admit that I now tend to change at Leeds and Carlisle as that does sometimes have the cheapest prices and if you can get good connections does not take as long as you might expect. Also I never tire of travelling the Settle to Carlisle line.

 

[Qwerty133]

Result!

Now, why can't EMT do this when there's something on at Uttoxeter?

Because that is common sense which is something EMT don't know about. Or maybe because people will argue that whichever direction from derby that it is heading it should go in the other one that ends up with a dogbox

 

[sd0733]

Do you know if FC was declassified?

Yes it was, sat in it myself, good with the free wi-fi!

 

[MCR247]

Actually wish I could have done

 

[Lewisham2221]

Because that is common sense which is something EMT don't know about. Or maybe because people will argue that whichever direction from derby that it is heading it should go in the other one that ends up with a dogbox

It'd be a start though, at least you could have a doubled up dogbox going the other way then, and have twice as much lack of legroom!

 

[sd0733]

The 2 other diagrams today were also running with 2x153 as well.